In fact, that's just what an independent contractor said in a November 2001 audit of the city's roads. Using a 100-point condition index defined by the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Harris and Associates determined that Saratoga's roads average at about 70, the lowest in the "very good" range.

This information together with personal observations have left many Saratogans wondering why the city says that it needs a budget supplement of about $2.6 million annually.

While that figure includes an approximate $1.4 million to supplement its current preventative maintenance budget, it also includes $765,000 in rehabilitation work to catch up on several years' worth of deferred maintenance. The remaining $500,000 would fund a recent increase in public safety costs.

The city is asking for the money in the form of Measure V, a proposal for a 4 percent utility tax that would be applied to gas, electric, water, television, phone and cellular phone charges for the next 10 years. But not everyone agrees that the tax is the best way to boost revenues.

The additional revenue was initially sought after a fall 2003 city council hearing about city-owned property. Community members showed up in scores to share their views on what should be done with 20 city properties.

The council created an ad hoc "vision" committee (later renamed the revenue review committee) to identify potential funding sources for repairs and improvements to those facilities. The committee proposed the idea of the utility tax at an April 2004 council meeting. Since the state government has taken funds from property tax and vehicle license fees that were originally earmarked for the city, the committee said that a utility tax would be the only revenue option that would not be subject to such state "takeaways."

Though state Proposition 1A, also on the Nov. 2 ballot, would protect the city from future takeaways if passed, proponents of the utility tax say that it would not make up for years of lost revenue.

"It wouldn't take the need away that the utility tax needs to fill," says Evan Baker, a revenue review committee member and former councilman. "They've got $18 million of work that needs to be done, and that's just to kind of get to the break-even point. If ... two years from now the state will stop taking money away, you have to say, 'That's nice, but what do we do to fund all the shortfall?' "

Some community members say they would rather see a lower tax, one with a shorter duration or a different type of tax all together.

"When this economy starts to get better, there's going to be increased revenues coming into the city, yet we're going to still be taking all this money out with the utility tax," says resident Mike Fox Jr. "Maybe some of this money should be set aside and put into some kind of endowment fund. What happens at end of 10 years when you become dependent on this income and then this money goes away?"

Others say they aren't happy that the tax is not specifically earmarked for infrastructure improvements. Also on the ballot is Measure U, an advisory measure asking voters if the city should use the tax's funds "primarily for repair, maintenance and improvement of city infrastructure (including streets, bridges, sidewalks, medians, buildings, storm drains and parks) and to maintain or improve current levels of public safety." That measure is not legally binding, but only provides direction to the council.

"It's advisory," resident Jim Eller says. "I think any time the council has a need, they can reach in and see the money."

Fox, too, says he worries that the advisory measure will not prevent the money from being dipped into as needs arise.

"Who's gonna hold the city council's feet to the fire when [Measure V] passes and then the council decides, 'Well, let's put a little bit of this money into this,' " he says. "There's always going to be an emergency that comes up where they say, 'We need this money here.' "

Vic Monia, another revenue review committee member and former councilman, says that if residents see that the money is not being spent as they advised, they can call for a repeal of the tax. This happened in 1996, when residents voted to end a 3.5 percent tax on gas and electric bills.

"There's not a big budget, so it's not like you can't scrutinize the budget pretty easily," Monia says. "It wouldn't really be hard to keep track of it ... The protection is that mechanism: the people can repeal the tax any time they see fit."

Councilman Norman Kline says that the advisory measure isn't even necessary because it's a bit misleading.

"Let's not play a shell game," he says. "When I'm voting next year, I'm not going to cut sheriff's. I'm not going to cut roads. I'm going to cut everything else ... What's causing a problem? Roads and sheriff's. What's unfortunately going to get shafted are other programs."

Still, Eller, Fox and others say they would be more comfortable being assured of where the money is going.

Under state law, measures that would allocate tax revenue to a specific budget area require a two-thirds majority vote to pass. Members of the revenue review committee say they proposed a non-specific tax so that only a 50 percent-plus one majority would be necessary.

"That's not a reason to pass a tax in a democracy," says Councilman Stan Bogosian, the only council member opposing the measure. "That borders on arrogance, actually, to say that the voters need to be in some ways hoodwinked into voting for a tax."

Bogosian also says voters do have reason to doubt that the tax revenue will be spent on what Measure V proponents say it will. When the city bought the former Grace Lutheran Church on Prospect Road several years ago, he says it was with the understanding that it could be sold if it was not used. Two years later, the facility is used only lightly and is in need of major renovations that the city has no current plans to make.

Other council members have said they will not sell the property, even though it has appreciated in value, because they say assets should not be sold to fund ongoing costs.

But the bottom line for many community members will be how much the tax will cost them. The Committee to Save Saratoga on its website says that the tax will cost homeowners an average of $16 a month, based on monthly utility costs of $400. For businesses, that cost will vary widely. Most shops, which generally pay only electric and phone bills, would not face a major increase, but restaurants with high water and electric costs would be hit harder.

Bella Saratoga owner Bill Cooper says monthly utility bills for the Big Basin Way restaurant reach about $3,000. A 4 percent increase would mean an additional $120 every month, in a "tough industry" where every dollar matters. If the tax will help, though, he says it will be worth it.

"I understand the city needs a source of income it can count on, and if we're ever going to get the Village sidewalks spruced up, we probably need it," he says. "I don't know anything else that works. This probably spreads the pain more evenly."

Marc Benson, whose sister owns M.E. Benson's Antiques on Third Street, says that even though the dollar amount won't be great, the tax increase will hurt.

"It'd mean another 4 percent business I'd have to do that I'm not doing," he says. "[The city] can't squeeze any more out of you."

Saratoga Mayor Ann Waltonsmith says the "squeeze" is necessary, however unpleasant, and one she wishes the city didn't need. The tax was originally proposed at 5 percent, but the council reduced it to 4 percent in an attempt to make it slightly more attractive.

"We tried for many years to say that next year it's going to get better," she says. "It's a city with very small sales tax, and it's a city that prides itself on being a suburban quiet city. We have to pay for that."