AUGUSTA – Members of the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee voted unanimously Thursday to forward to the full Legislature a bill that would give the city control over the community’s water system, now operated by the Brewer Water District.

While reluctant to get involved in what some saw as a local squabble, committee members sent the bill on to the full Legislature after amending it to require that a local referendum be held in Brewer, and that the transfer take place if residents vote in favor of it and after an affirmative vote to that end by the City Council and Water District trustees.

Another condition was that an advisory board be established and include district trustees and representatives from Holden, Eddington and Orrington, adjacent communities served by the water district.

The water district, established in 1946, is governed by a five-member board of trustees appointed by the City Council. The bill seeking to dissolve the district, repeal its charter and turn its assets over to the city government was submitted to the Legislature in late January at the city’s request.

Though no one disputes the quality of water the district provides – Brewer water recently won a statewide taste test – city officials say they are worried about the increasing cost of providing it.

District trustees, who opposed the bill, reserved comment Thursday on the committee’s decision.

“We’re waiting for more clarification,” said water board Chairman William Hayes. Hayes said the trustees wanted to review the legislation and its ramifications before offering their views.

City officials were gratified by the outcome of Thursday’s work session.

“We’re very pleased with the vote and confident voters will support us through the referendum process,” City Manager Stephen Bost said after the committee made its decision. Bost, a former state senator, earlier noted that some of lawmakers’ other options included killing the bill or forwarding it without requiring a local referendum.

Said Mayor Michael Celli, “I think it was apparent that several committee members had done a lot of homework on the issue.”

He added, “Lots of work was done in a very short time. I cannot say enough about the hard work put in by [Bost], [Finance Director] Karen McVey and the rest of the city administration. The local [legislative] delegation was extremely helpful and the other four councilors were absolutely focused and supportive of one another throughout this process.”

Since the bill was introduced, city officials have said they want to take over the district because of increasing water rates, relatively high fire hydrant rental fees and the district’s growing debt load.

By assuming responsibility for the local water supply, the city believes it can, over time, bring greater efficiencies and economies of scale to the operation by eliminating the duplication of services, doing in-house work the water district now contracts out, and through the city’s access to more favorable interest rates on loans, among other things.

Trustees resisted the move out of concern that the city had not demonstrated to their satisfaction that it is financially or technically able to operate the water system. They also expressed discomfort at the speed at which the takeover was proceeding and because they weren’t consulted before the city put the effort to acquire the district into motion.

During Thursday’s work session, McVey distributed to legislators a memorandum outlining some of the savings the city expects to achieve by acquiring the water district. According to her analysis, the city would save about $50,000 a year at a minimum in such areas as labor, billing and collections and contractual services despite an additional $24,000 in debt service. The extra debt service cost, however, would be offset by interest savings of more than $5 million over 30 years by refinancing the district’s current and pending debt.

Since the bill was submitted, the dispute between the city and the district has become increasingly divisive, with the city and the trustees each retaining legal counsel. Attempts to resolve differences between the city and district trustees included two negotiating sessions, several meetings, copious correspondence, legal opinions and financial analyses.

Though Hayes declined to comment on the bill, he did take steps to set the record straight on his absence during the early stages of the dispute. Hayes said he usually spends six weeks in Florida each winter, not several months, and schedules the visit so he misses only one meeting a year. This year, he said, the stay was longer because his wife was recuperating.

With the end of the legislative session coming soon, the Legislature is expected to consider the Brewer bill within the next few weeks. The local referendum, however, won’t occur until summer or fall.

City officials said they had hoped to conduct the water district vote in conjunction with the statewide primary election in June to save the estimated $4,000 cost for a separate election. That, however, appears unlikely, largely because of the time frame that must be followed for local elections, which includes a 90-day posting period.