BELLE — The Maries County R-2 Board of Education selected an acrylic roof repair proposal Oct. 27 after weighing the cost of replacement against contractors’ recommendations to restore it.

The decision followed an extended discussion about leaks, standing water, unused skylights and whether a coating would provide a lasting solution. Board members compared four contractors’ proposals, including two for replacement and two recommending repairs.

Tony Gieck, maintenance-bus supervisor, described problems with the existing roofing material pulling away around skylights and a low area where water collects. He said much of the patchwork over the past eight or nine years had involved the skylights.

The skylights are no longer used and have been painted black, according to the discussion. The proposed work included covering or removing them, although contractors offered different methods.

Gieck said the replacement approaches would remove the existing roofing layers down to the deck. One replacement proposal was discussed at approximately $196,000, but board members noted differences among the proposals, including whether they outlined skylight replacement and new guttering.

The repair proposals offered an alternative to tearing off the existing roof. Board members questioned how the coatings would address deteriorating material, drainage problems and the skylight openings.

Gieck expressed a preference for full replacement. Board members questioned whether that expense was justified if a repair could provide years of additional use.

Much of the discussion centered on warranties. Members discussed an available 20-year warranty for the coating approach and asked how the contractors’ proposals compared in materials and scope.

Members also considered how future building plans should factor into the expenditure, although no new-school project or construction project is under consideration at the moment.

Administrators told the board that capital-project funds were available to cover any of the options under consideration.

As members worked toward a decision, they examined whether the proposals specifically addressed filling low areas, covering skylight openings and protecting the gym floor during construction.

The board ultimately selected the lower-priced acrylic option of $59,571 from the contractor identified during the meeting as Trainor, rather than its silicone alternative. Members discussed a price difference of approximately $6,000 to $7,000 between those two options and said the warranties were the same.

The motion was seconded, and the board proceeded with the acrylic proposal.

During scheduling discussions, Gieck said coating work would depend on suitable temperatures. Contractors had discussed trying to complete the work before the end of the calendar year.

Following the decision, district officials discussed contacting the selected contractor and arranging the required advance payment. The proposal was described as requiring 60 percent of the bid ($35,743) before work begins.