THE budget process of the city government has started to roll. The various departments and offices under the executive branch are already preparing for what they believe would be the best for the people of Cagayan de Oro. And these will have to be translated into budgetary provisions. Will the project proposals and budgetary recommendations of these executive departments and offices again face castration by the city council? Well, your guess will be as good as mine. Guided by the pronouncement of Mayor Oscar Moreno that the executive will submit a budget proposal in the total amount of P4.8 billion, the Roads and Traffic Administration is now rolling its sleeves to be able to make the deadline for submitting the proposals to the budget office. Since almost half of the 2015 proposals were castrated by the city council, those projects may be re-submitted along with several other major projects. While we do not expect the budget proposals to be approved by the city council, we will still do our best to come up with a doable and effective budget for 2016 to equip the RTA with the necessary facilities and manpower to address the traffic woes of the city. To recall, the city council reduced the 2015 proposal of the RTA for maintenance and other operating expenses by as much as eight-five percent (85%). Yes, only 15% was approved! The proposed budget for capital outlay was reduced by 75% while the budget for personnel services (salaries, wages, allowances, and the like) was even reduced by 2.5%. The RTA badly needs additional personnel to effectively manage traffic on the road. The city council however did not agree to this and totally disapproved the proposal to hire not even regulars or casuals but job orders. And, only six percent was approved for training and travelling expenses. Gasoline and oil was reduced by 45% and the printing of traffic citation tickets and accountable forms was cut by 67%. On the other hand, only 30% was approved for a realiable towing truck and only 19% was approved for maintenance and repair of motor vehicles used by the RTA. Without the necessary logistics, the RTA cannot deliver the desired results and it would appear that the department is incapable of doing its job, especially in the eyes of those who sit on the other side of the fence. Is this what the city council wants to project the RTA to be? And what items were totally disapproved, or zero-ed? These are traffic signs and pavement markings under capital outlay, traffic volume survey, and traffic outposts. Also zero-ed was the provision for RTA office renovation and improvement. The latter item is necessary because the RTA is occupying the old building where the Office of the Building Official used to hold office. The observant eyes will surely easily notice the dilapidated ceilings, the unkempt and oxymoron comfort rooms, and even the crowded spaces occupied by organics as offices. But the RTA has to make do with the conditions which the city council failed to see.