City entry funds are best spent elsewhere

I just finished the article in Valley Voice about the projects for the Valley, and again I’m amazed at the reasoning put forth by the councilmen and the priorities they have.

Non-union employees give up the cost-of-living raise, probably so they might hopefully keep their jobs, thus saving $40,000. Our schools need updated traffic signals, and yet the council thinks it’s so very important to spend at least $50,000 on a landscaped city entry. 

Does anyone else understand the reasoning of this, or is it just me?  Do we really need some fancy signs to tell us where we are or could that money be better spent on more important things?

Janet Polignoni

Spokane Valley