SOME of West Dunbartonshire's most contentious finances are to go up for final debate this week.

The full council will meet and have to sign off on the 200-page audited annual accounts for 2015/16 as well as reports on the general services and housing revenue accounts for the authority.

Many of the numbers in the reports were signed off by both Labour and the SNP earlier this year, including a spiralling debt load that could top £1/2 billion by the end of 2018.

The council paid off more than £10 million of debts to their general fund in the past year and more than £12 million in the housing revenue account. More than half of those payments were just on the interest on loans taken out by the council.

Amongst the details in the reports being presented this week, the council’s accountants are laying out a variance in the projections made in February in terms of revenue flowing in to West Dunbartonshire.

For general services - covering everything except housing - revenue is £1 million better off thanks to support from the Scottish Government to boost attainment.

The planned spending on the capital programme £16.6 million less in the coming year, but the projected spending over the life of al the projects coming up will be £2.4 million more costly.

The report to councillors concludes: “The present variances should be viewed in the knowledge that there are a number of variable factors which could arise between now and March 31 and which could affect the year end results for both the revenue and capital budgets.

“And as a consequence of current market conditions, capital receipts may either not be received or they may be less than anticipated.

“Proper budgetary control and sound financial practice are cornerstones of good governance and support council and officers to pursue the five strategic priorities of the council’s Strategic Plan. This report forms part of the financial governance of the council.”

The housing revenue account is £1/2 million better off than expected and the capital programme for housing shows it being £6 million better off, thanks to a modest underspend and changing when projects are carried out.