BUTLER TWP — The Butler School Board has narrowed down potential companies to one to provide the food service for the school district.

The board identified the Nutrition Group as the one company it may seek services with in the new school year, but it did not vote Tuesday night to choose between the current food service system and the Nutrition Group of Irwin, Pa.

The Nutrition Group, which serves the Mars, South Butler and Freeport school districts, submitted a plan for Butler to include more choices, upgrade food at the elementary schools, and use student surveys to improve meal menus.

Nutrition’s proposal to the district forecast more than $1.2 million in food costs, and estimates the cost of the program would be about $2.4 million. These numbers were similar to the ones by the two other companies that submitted proposals: Metz Culinary Management of Dallas, Pa. and Aramark of Philadelphia.

The Nutrition proposal, like the two other proposals, used projected breakfast and lunch price increases. The district projects lunch prices to increase at its elementary schools from $2.10 to $2.25; and at its secondary schools from $2.35 to $2.50. Breakfast prices would increase from $1 to $1.25 at the elementary and secondary schools.

On the revenue side, Nutrition’s proposal guarantees a $150,000 payout for the district a school year. The Metz proposal guaranteed $300,000, according to board solicitor Tom King.

However, board member Jennifer Cummings was uncomfortable making a decision based solely on finances and stressed that the Nutrition Group had a better, more promising all-around proposal.

But board member Bill Halle liked the idea of a $300,000 profit to help the district balance its projected $3.9 million deficit for the 2016-2017 school year.

However, Deborah Brandstetter, director of business services, said the food service accounts are separate from the general operating fund, and any remaining money in the food budget does not apply to the deficit.

If that money is not going for the deficit, Cummings could not justify making the payout the only deciding factor.

“That’s all food service money,” Cummings stressed. “You can’t apply that to your deficit.”

Ultimately, Cummings liked that the Nutrition Group’s proposal seemed to be more appreciative and flexible about working with the food service employees who have been with the district for many years.

Superintendent Dale Lumley seconded those remarks, saying the district’s employees would be in the best hands with Nutrition Group of the three submitted proposals.

The outsourcing of food service is being investigated because of lagging student participation and the in-house program has lost nearly $700,000 since the 2008-09 school year.

The Nutrition Group is confident it can increase student participation.

Under Nutrition Group’s plan, it would take on both the management and the current employees at the district through the union, with the company acknowledging that the district would save money with reduced pension contributions and benefits. Those employees would be hired for the same hours and the same hourly rates they receive as employees for the district.

The Nutrition proposal does not include staffing decreases.

Currently, the district’s 95 food service workers do not have a contract since their previous one expired in June 2015.

The district is negotiating a new deal with the union, and the bargaining unit must be given a chance to offer the district a counterproposal to the one chosen by the Nutrition Group.

Superintendent Dale Lumley said the district’s next closed negotiation meeting is June 8.

Brandstetter said any food services contract with a company would have to be finalized by the end of June.