Compare governments
How much of each government's agenda goes to a subject, next to the regional average. Counting alone would rank these places by size — Cary puts ten times as many items on its agendas as Pittsboro — so everything here is a share or a rate, and the count it rests on is always beside it.
Search and filter
Of the agenda items we have been able to classify for this government, what fraction carry the subject. Not of every item — whether an item is classifiable at all depends on the agenda platform, not on the government.
Every subject, past 12 months
| Government | Subject | Share of classified work | Items | Of classified | Agenda read | Range | Against the region |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Town of Chapel Hill | Historic preservation | 20.3% | 68 | 302 | 25% | 18–28% | more than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Housing and affordability | 17.2% | 56 | 302 | 25% | 15–23% | more than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Appointments and personnel | 10.5% | 32 | 302 | 25% | 8–15% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Environment and sustainability | 7.8% | 24 | 302 | 25% | 5–12% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Rezoning | 7.4% | 23 | 302 | 25% | 5–11% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Budget and appropriations | 6.8% | 18 | 302 | 25% | 4–9% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Zoning text amendment | 5.3% | 17 | 302 | 25% | 4–9% | more than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Faith and cultural communities | 4.6% | 15 | 302 | 25% | 3–8% | more than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Land conversion and large development | 4.6% | 14 | 302 | 25% | 3–8% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Elections and districts | 4.3% | 14 | 302 | 25% | 3–8% | more than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Roads and transportation | 4.3% | 12 | 302 | 25% | 2–7% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Comprehensive plan | 4.1% | 13 | 302 | 25% | 3–7% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Grants and outside funding | 4.1% | 12 | 302 | 25% | 2–7% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Contracts and procurement | 4.0% | 10 | 302 | 25% | 2–6% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Health and human services | 4.0% | 11 | 302 | 25% | 2–6% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Schools and education | 3.7% | 4 | 302 | 25% | 1–3% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Stormwater and flooding | 3.5% | 11 | 302 | 25% | 2–6% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Parks and recreation | 3.3% | 8 | 302 | 25% | 1–5% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Water and sewer | 3.1% | 9 | 302 | 25% | 2–6% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Public facilities | 3.1% | 8 | 302 | 25% | 1–5% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Intergovernmental agreements | 3.1% | 9 | 302 | 25% | 2–6% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Police and public safety | 3.0% | 8 | 302 | 25% | 1–5% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Arts and public art | 2.4% | 7 | 302 | 25% | 1–5% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Transit | 2.3% | 7 | 302 | 25% | 1–5% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Civil rights and nondiscrimination | 2.2% | 7 | 302 | 25% | 1–5% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Economic development incentives | 2.2% | 7 | 302 | 25% | 1–5% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Tax rate and revaluation | 2.1% | 5 | 302 | 25% | 1–4% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Subdivision and site plans | 1.8% | 5 | 302 | 25% | 1–4% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Ethics and transparency | 1.0% | 3 | 302 | 25% | 0–3% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Litigation and settlements | 1.0% | 3 | 302 | 25% | 0–3% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | State legislative agenda | 1.0% | 3 | 302 | 25% | 0–3% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Bonds and debt | 0.8% | 2 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Fees and utility rates | 0.8% | 2 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Annexation | 0.7% | 1 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | less than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Homelessness and shelter | 0.7% | 2 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | LGBTQ+ policy | 0.6% | 2 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | DEI programs | 0.6% | 2 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | more than the region |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Solid waste and recycling | 0.4% | 1 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Broadband and technology | 0.4% | 1 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
| Town of Chapel Hill | Drugs and addiction | 0.4% | 1 | 302 | 25% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
Download this table as CSV Two governments side by side What has been changing
How to read this
Share is the fraction of a government's classified agenda items carrying the subject — not of every item. That distinction matters more than it sounds. Where a portal publishes a structured item list, that list is the whole agenda, call to order and adjournment included; where it does not, the item list is written out by the summarization worker, which records the substantive business and skips the ceremony. On this site 40% of Cary's items carry a subject against 79% of Apex's, and the difference is the agenda platform, not the town. Dividing by every item made portal governments look half as engaged in everything.
The share is adjusted toward the regional average in proportion to how little evidence stands behind it — a board with four classified items and one rezoning does not get reported as the most development-focused place in the region. The range beside it is a 95% interval on the unadjusted figure.
Against the region says whether that interval clears the regional average. Agenda items are not a random sample of anything, so this is a guard against reading noise as a finding rather than a statistical test. A government with few items will almost always read as within the usual range, because with few items almost nothing can be told apart.
Per 10,000 voters is judged against a per-resident regional rate, not against the share — a small town with a busy agenda can be first per resident and unremarkable as a share, and both are true. The interval there is on the item count rather than a percentage, because once the denominator is a population the items are arrivals and not a proportion. It uses registered voters from the State Board of Elections, summed across counties for a town that straddles a line. Registered voters are not population: they leave out children, non-citizens, and adults who have not registered, and the share who register differs from place to place. It is the denominator this state publishes per municipality and keeps current, which no population estimate does.