The council’s Labour administration has denied claims that up to 20 lollipop patrollers face redundancy.
They say instead the posts - to be cut as part of cost cutting plans - will be lost by “not filling vacancies as they arise”.
As part of budget cuts - presented by Labour and voted through with support from the Tories earlier this year - the phased removal of the lollipop patrols was agreed, with the move to be implemented once upgraded traffic controlled crossings are in place to replace them.
This is to be carried out in consultation with the schools involved.
SNP councillors this week, however, raised further concerns about the decision, which they say would see the removal of “3.59 full time equivalent posts, referenced as a total staff headcount of 20 given the part-time nature of the roles”.
They added that Labour and the Tories had committed to further spending of £275,000 from capital budgets in order to substitute the safety activities of “lollipop workers”, but accused the administration of having forgotten to include the spend in its budget - meaning other road safety projects in the same period face delay or cancellation.
Stirling SNP environment spokesperson Cllr Jim Thomson said: “This is yet another budget blunder from Labour and the Tories, which will have real consequences to our residents.
Click here for more news and sport from the Stirling area.
“Lollipop crossing officers are beloved across our communities, and the redundancy of 20 will be acutely felt by school pupils and their families.
“To then forget to include almost the almost £300,000 needed to replace this service with structural safety measures is just incompetence.
“Now pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers face a more dangerous experience on Stirling’s roads elsewhere, whilst money is diverted from other projects to backfill the lack of safety near our schools.
“It would be laughable if it were not so serious. Officers put real time and energy into ensuring infrastructure plans run to budget and schedule - but Labour and the Tories don’t care about the detail, nor the damage their cuts are inflicting to communities all over Stirling.
“Yet again, Labour voters must be wondering why their votes have been hijacked to implement a Tory austerity agenda.”
At a recent environment, transport and net zero committee meeting, SNP councillor Jim Thomson had said he was “really disappointed” about the money being spent removing crossing patrol officers.
He added: “That £275,000 could have been better spent on other interventions. That worries me a lot.
“When we come to school crossing patrol closures I think you will find - and I have the example of Drip Road in Stirling in my ward - that where you have a patrol officer you often need both because drivers just ignore the crossings.”
The Labour administration, however, hit back at the claims, and insisted no crossing patrol officers would be made redundant.
A Stirling Labour spokesperson said: “This is appalling scaremongering from SNP councillors. There will be no school crossing patrol compulsory redundancies and to suggest otherwise can only cause unnecessary worry for staff.
“The transition will be managed by not filling vacancies as they arise and installing road safety measures which will help school pupils and the wider community at all times of the day.
“It is farcical from the SNP to acknowledge there is money in the council budget for these safety improvements and then in the very next sentence say there is not.
“As was outlined in the council budget papers, this will be paid for through grant funding from the Government’s ‘Cycling, Walking and Safer Routes’ fund. We are not allowed to use this fund to pay staff, but we can use it to make physical improvement to walking and cycling routes around schools, making crossing the road, and cycling on it, safer for everyone at all times of the day.
“We would encourage everybody to take all that the SNP Group on Stirling Council say with a pinch of salt and decide whether you think they cannot read budget papers, whether you think they are prioritising inaccurate political point scoring over good governance, or indeed both of the above.”
