CONNEAUT — City Council in Conneaut may be getting ready to pull the plug on its professional contract negotiator.

At Monday's work session, Finance Director John Williams said he will seek a budget amendment at next week's regular meeting to transfer another $35,000 into the negotiator's salary fund.

The city has already paid $45,000 to the Cleveland law firm of Johnson, Miller and Schmitz, meaning Williams anticipates the tab could approach $80,000.

“Could be more, could be less,” Williams said. “Right now we have zero dollars to pay the negotiator.”

Two of four contracts have already been settled. Police officers and dispatchers have agreed to three-year contracts. Still on the table are contracts with the union firefighters and the city’s service department workers. The firefighter contract is bound for arbitration, according to reports.

Last summer, City Manager Robert Schaumleffel Jr. told council a professional negotiator was needed because of complexities in the contracts. Upon hearing the cost of the expert could approach — or exceed — $80,000, council isn't so sure.

Three new members — Council President Thomas Udell and at-large councilmen Robert Naylor and John Roach — were not a party to that decision.

Acting on a motion from Ward 1 Councilman Dave Campbell, council separated the contract negotiator payment from other items in the pending budget amendment. The negotiator transfer will now be contained in a separate ordinance subject to review.

Council approved the motion by a 6-1 vote, with Udell objecting.

Campbell also suggested now is the time for the city manager to step into the talks to save the city some money. Past managers have negotiated contracts, and Schaumleffel should be no exception, Campbell said.

“We could bring back some workers if the manager would do his job,” he said.

Schaumleffel did not attend Monday's meeting due to illness, Udell said.

According to reports, a majority of council told Schaumleffel — during a closed-door executive session last year — they wouldn't object if he were to bring aboard a professional negotiator.

Luke Gallagher, the city's acting law director, said the administration merely acted on the consensus heard during that summertime meeting.

“You’re acting like it was a surprise (the negotiator) was hired,” Gallagher said, adding council provide a “clear and unequivocal direction” on the matter.

A couple members disagreed. Ward 2 Councilman Charles Lewis said he understood the administration would merely bring back proposals on such a consulting service. Campbell also said the situation has worsened beyond what was anticipated.

Ward 4 Councilman Tony Julio said he believed every council member knew the implications at the time. “Some (members) are getting some heat and starting to buckle,” he said.

“I never approved $80,000 for this negotiator,” said Campbell, who asked if some of the expense could be lifted from the city manager’s budget.

Gallagher cautioned council not to act imprudently on the negotiator matter. “Don't put (Williams) in a position where he can't pay for (services rendered),” he said.

Naylor said it may be too late in the game to change the rules. “We're an awfully long way down the road,” he said.

Naylor did endorse the idea of separating the negotiator's pay from the rest of the budget transfer ordinance, saying it may motivate the administration to provide information council has been seeking on the situation.

“We have asked for some very definitive information,” he said. “As soon as that information is received, then we'll be able to give direction.”

Naylor did not elaborate on the nature of the information.

The bulk of the proposed $35,000 transfer would come from water and sewer line items, Williams said. Those funds were chosen because many of the service department employees work in those departments, he said.

“I tried to apportion the cost based on the number of employees in the bargaining units,” Williams said. “We will have difficulty paying (for the negotiator) out of the general fund.”

Campbell objected to the water and sewer funds being tapped for the expense, especially when utility bills are beginning to reflect the 15 percent rate hike imposed at the start of the year.