The Scarborough School Department has spent more than $23,000 responding to the concerns of Town Councilors Jeffrey Messer and Robert Patch regarding the quality of the high school construction project, and the town employee managing the project wants to get paid more for handling the workload.

Those answers are not enough for Messer, who said prior to Wednesday’s council meeting that he would change his vote – one of a four-vote majority in the last council vote – to oppose the hiring of an independent engineer to review the project.

His switch could kill the proposal, which will be voted on after the Current’s deadline. He said the switch is not because his concerns have been allayed but because his requests for information have been “basically stonewalled” by school officials.

The Board of Education passed a resolution last week stating it feels the project is being done correctly, and saying if the Town Council feels differently and appropriates money for a third-party review, the schools will hire the company and oversee the work.

Messer said he does not believe the school district would conduct a fair and objective review. And he said a review by state officials – which found no major concerns – was not independent, because the reports were submitted to Maine Education Commissioner Sue Gendron, who is the sister of Norm Justice, the district’s facilities manager and owner’s representative on the project.

A memo from Justice indicates the school district has spent $23,162.64 on a number of services to answer the questions that were raised. More expenses are expected to come forward, but have not yet been calculated, including additional compensation for Justice.

“I think we would all agree this additional effort and time is well beyond the anticipated normal duties contemplated in my agreement for services as Owner’s Representative,” Justice’s memo reads. “Consequently I will be submitting under a separate request my own request for additional services.”

Superintendent Bill Michaud said he is expecting Justice to ask for more money because his helping answer the concerns is “beyond the scope of what we expected our owner’s representative to do.”

According to the memo, the district spent $605.70 with Staples; $16,839.44 with Harriman Associates; $120 with Spillers for copies; $2,407.50 with Drummond, Woodsum and MacMahon for legal advice; $2,640 with Northeast Test Consultants for air quality testing and $550 with RW Gillespie and Associates for explanations of earth compaction rates.

During a special school board meeting on April 14 the board voted 4-2 to pass a resolution stating it feels satisfied with the high school work and the various outside reviews conducted so far, but if the council feels differently and appropriates money to hire a third party engineer, the board wants to hire the engineer and oversee the review.

“I think this project is 100 percent on track,” said board Chairman David Beneman, adding that it is meeting all the design criteria, is well managed, and the district has excellent supervision on the project. “Overall there is nothing to be concerned about this project.”

The issues were first raised by Messer and Patch last month and included a wide range of concerns, including those involving anchor bolts, mold, and work not being done according to project specifications.

Since that time the district has attempted to answer all of the concerns. First, it released a three-inch thick binder answering each question. It then held an approximately five-hour meeting with the high school construction team, including the project’s engineer Harriman Associates and general contractor Pizzagalli Construction, during which company and school officials responded to each of the concerns.

Finally, the district had the state Department of Education and Bureau of General Services review the project and got reports from both organizations indicate the project is up to par.

Still, both Patch and Messer have said they have further questions and have restated the need to bring in a third-party engineer to review the project. The issue currently rests with the Town Council, which at its last meeting gave preliminary approval, in a 4-3 vote, to spend $20,000 on the request.

The district feels that all of the questions have been answered and there is nothing wrong with the project.

“The review process has been thorough, well documented, time consuming, and costly,” the board’s resolution reads. “The Board of Education sees no justification for the expenditure of additional taxpayer dollars for even more review. We are satisfied that the information provided verifies the project to be safe, structurally sound, and in conformity with our expectations, the project specifications, and the contact.”

Still, the Town Council could decide to move forward with the expenditure to hire the third party engineer. The board recognizes this fact and in its resolution stated the board, through Michaud, “will retain a qualified independent third party and oversee another review, which will be performed promptly and within the limitations of any financial appropriations by the Town Council.”

Board member Walter Hansen, who voted against the proposal, said he simply did not think the expenditure was necessary.

“Haven’t we already seen enough,” he said. “It think it’s just an additional expense that isn’t necessary if other folks have come in and given up a clean bill of health, so to speak,” he said.