WEST FORK — The City Council learned complying with the wishes of November’s voters could delay a major sewage project.

Officials with the city’s Water and Sewer Commission and engineers have designed plans to link sewer lines through Greenland and into Fayetteville’s system.

More than 65 percent of 909 voters approved a measure to dissolve the commission.

Tom Kieklak, the city’s attorney, said the council isn’t legally bound to the election’s outcome because the petitions for the measure didn’t have a copy of the ordinance attached, which is required by state law.

The council met Thursday with some members of the commission and fielded questions from residents about the issue.

“I am here to make sure what the people voted for is what they get no matter what discussions we go through,” said new Alderwoman Sarah Setzer.

The council in December didn’t approve a proposal to dissolve the commission and instead scheduled Thursday night’s work session. The council agreed to reconsider dissolving the commission at February’s meeting.

“We need to figure out the impact of this initiative and what direction it’s going to take,” said Alderman Charlie Rossetti who led the work session.

The city has a three-year window to complete the sewer line project, said Butch Bartholomew, water and sewer superintendent.

The state Department of Environmental Quality told the city last year it must close its sewer plant after the department recorded 45 pollution violations since 2009. State officials told the city the 42-year-old plant continues to exceed discharge limits of pollutants into the West Fork of the White River.

Bartholomew said Thursday he is trying to secure money for the sewer project through the state Natural Resources Commission. The process could take six to eight months, he said.

Robert White, vice president of McClelland Consulting Engineers, estimated the project cost is $5.6 million.

The five-member Water and Sewer Commission operates independently, except for the council approving rate increases, debt and commissioner appointments.

Kieklak said dissolving the commission could still be done and wouldn’t jeopardize funding applications. However, he and city officials would have to redo stacks of paperwork in order to change the language from commission to a city committee supervised by officials. That could take a few months, he said.

The difference between a commission and committee, Kieklak said, is the council has a more supervisory role over the utility’s operation under the committee structure.

Proponents for November’s initiative have said they want the commission dissolved because of financial mismanagement, including a $25,000 city bailout to meet payroll in 2011. They complained large amounts of water were lost through leaky pipes and employees were overpaid. Most of the leaks were repaired, and rates were increased to address the shortfall, according to commission financial reports.

Commissioners are volunteers and confirmed by the City Council, Bartholomew said.

“I for one am embarrassed, and I feel totally responsible that they are even talked about and treated like this when they’ve done nothing but come to help, free of charge, and they’re kicked in the teeth for whatever reason,” Bartholomew said. “If it’s my fault, I certainly want them to know I apologize for it.”

Veteran council members also took some of the blame for not actively overseeing the commission and the utility’s operations. Alderwoman Anita Lowry said the council needs to step up.

“We could have chosen to be more hands on and we haven’t,” Lowry said. “That’s the City Council’s fault. That’s each member’s fault. We could be more active in going to their meetings, be more active to ask for paperwork, budgets. Since 2008, I have not been on a council that was interested in being more active.”