Overall, Centennial residents expressed a moderately positive view of the city and its services. A majority approved of the job the city was doing to provide public services and programs, and most felt the city offered good value for the taxes and fees they paid. Residents also broadly believed the city had the financial resources needed to maintain an acceptable level of services, and a majority agreed that the city spent taxpayer money wisely.
On public safety, opinions were somewhat mixed. A notable share of residents believed crime had increased in recent years, while others felt it had stayed about the same. Most were at least somewhat familiar with the city’s law enforcement partnership with the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, and a majority approved of the Sheriff’s Office’s performance in meeting Centennial’s public safety needs. Most also felt the city had the financial resources to support public safety effectively.
When it came to roads and transportation, residents gave city streets generally decent marks, though a significant portion rated major roads as only fair. An overwhelming majority believed traffic had increased in recent years, and many felt road safety had declined. Most residents thought the city’s current pavement maintenance standards were appropriate or should be raised, and a majority believed the city had sufficient resources to maintain its roads.
Regarding the city’s contracted public works partnership with a private company, most residents approved of how the city was handling those services, though disapproval was notably higher in this area than in other service categories.
Before being presented with detailed budget context, residents were fairly evenly divided on whether they would support a modest tax increase for either transportation or public safety. However, after reading a series of informational statements about the city’s fiscal situation — including rising infrastructure costs, the street fund’s funding gap, aging infrastructure, and the city’s historically low debt and strong reserves — support for a transportation tax increase climbed meaningfully. Support for a public safety tax increase also rose, though by a smaller margin.
The informational statements that most moved residents toward support included learning that the city had never taken on debt in its 25-year history, that road repaving costs had risen sharply due to inflation, and that the city maintained a low sales tax rate relative to the broader metro area. The statement that the public safety contract consumed nearly half of the General Fund was the only piece of information that made a notable share of residents more likely to oppose funding efforts.
When asked to explain their views in open-ended responses, supporters of a tax increase cited concerns about crime, deteriorating roads, and the need to keep pace with inflation as key motivators, along with a general trust in local government. Opponents were primarily concerned about tax fatigue, skepticism about how existing funds were being managed, and the belief that current service levels were already adequate. Those who favored transportation funding but opposed public safety funding pointed to the large share of the budget already devoted to law enforcement, while those with the opposite preference argued that community safety was a more urgent priority than road improvements.
