Councillors have warned that a covid recovery fund should not be used to ‘fill in gaps’ in council budgets, after £3million worth of projects was put before a committee that had just £150,000 to allocate.
The covid fund has been contentious from the outset and controversy was never far from the talks when the Bathgate local area committee met to discuss what should qualify.
SNP councillor Willie Boyle was critical of many of the proposals put forward in the 50 projects listed as potential recipients of funding.
More than half were for what he said should be regular maintenance work within council budgets – including road channel cleaning and maintenance of signage.
He added: “We should not be using these funds to fill in the gaps in cutbacks.”
Conservative Councillor Charles Kennedy said involvement with some projects precluded his taking part in the decision-making, but added: “I am astonished at the amount of money and the amount of projects put in the paper. To have papers way beyond the limits of what is available is disappointing.”
A spring clean for Bathgate town centre will be one obvious result of the spend.
Also likely to be seeing improvement will be the path from Little Boghead, but a decision on that has been delayed until next week to allow councillors in the town to get a better idea of costs.
Donald Stavert, from the local community council said: “We’re disappointed about the way this fund has been handled. It’s very disappointing that the community council were not consulted.”
Whittling down what benefits could be brought from the covid fund, there was support for a deep clean of the town centre, the replacement and renewal of street furniture and the addition of trees in planters in George Street.
Broad agreement was reached on those projects and on improving the path from Little Boghead.
The project was earmarked for a complete renewal of path and lighting, but it was suggested that all that was needed was the cutback of shrubbery.
David Cullen from the NETs land and countryside teams said the cost difference between what was in the papers and what was on the ground was thousands as opposed to tens of thousands.
Labour councillor John McGinty expressed concern that the committee was being asked to make decisions when the accuracy of the figures was in doubt. Officers had stressed that the funding figures detailed in the papers were actually only estimates.
Councillors agreed to delay a decision on the Little Boghead funding until a site visit can be held and will meet again on Tuesday.
There was general agreement that the way the spending plan had been presented added to the confusion.
Don't miss the latest news from the West Lothian Courier. Sign up to our free newsletter here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/newsletter-preference-centre/
