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.

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.

governments with any

576

agenda items counted

4.4%

regional average

Every subject, past 12 months

Ranked by share of classified work. The bar shows the value; the line across it is the regional average, where one applies. "Agenda read" is how much of that government's agenda carries any subject at all — a share computed over a tenth of an agenda describes a tenth of an agenda.
Government	Subject	Share of classified work	Items	Of classified	Agenda read	Range	Against the region
City of Durham	Water and sewer	20.4%	74	332	83%	18–27%	more than the region
City of Durham	Contracts and procurement	15.5%	54	332	83%	13–21%	more than the region
City of Durham	Roads and transportation	13.1%	46	332	83%	11–18%	more than the region
City of Durham	Appointments and personnel	12.0%	41	332	83%	9–16%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Housing and affordability	9.6%	33	332	83%	7–14%	more than the region
City of Durham	Public facilities	9.6%	33	332	83%	7–14%	more than the region
City of Durham	Annexation	7.6%	27	332	83%	6–12%	more than the region
City of Durham	Budget and appropriations	7.4%	22	332	83%	4–10%	less than the region
City of Durham	Stormwater and flooding	7.0%	25	332	83%	5–11%	more than the region
City of Durham	Grants and outside funding	6.4%	22	332	83%	4–10%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Rezoning	6.0%	20	332	83%	4–9%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Transit	5.9%	21	332	83%	4–9%	more than the region
City of Durham	Police and public safety	4.7%	15	332	83%	3–7%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Health and human services	4.5%	14	332	83%	3–7%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Environment and sustainability	4.5%	14	332	83%	3–7%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Intergovernmental agreements	4.2%	14	332	83%	3–7%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Parks and recreation	4.1%	12	332	83%	2–6%	less than the region
City of Durham	Land conversion and large development	3.7%	12	332	83%	2–6%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Bonds and debt	2.6%	9	332	83%	1–5%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Schools and education	2.6%	1	332	83%	0–2%	less than the region
City of Durham	Civil rights and nondiscrimination	2.1%	7	332	83%	1–4%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Fire and EMS	1.9%	6	332	83%	1–4%	within the usual range
City of Durham	State legislative agenda	1.7%	6	332	83%	1–4%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Historic preservation	1.7%	5	332	83%	1–3%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Homelessness and shelter	1.7%	6	332	83%	1–4%	more than the region
City of Durham	Arts and public art	1.7%	5	332	83%	1–3%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Solid waste and recycling	1.5%	5	332	83%	1–3%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Comprehensive plan	1.4%	4	332	83%	0–3%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Fees and utility rates	1.2%	4	332	83%	0–3%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Zoning text amendment	1.1%	3	332	83%	0–3%	less than the region
City of Durham	Economic development incentives	1.0%	3	332	83%	0–3%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Faith and cultural communities	0.8%	2	332	83%	0–2%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Farmland and open space	0.7%	2	332	83%	0–2%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Ethics and transparency	0.7%	2	332	83%	0–2%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Broadband and technology	0.6%	2	332	83%	0–2%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Elections and districts	0.5%	1	332	83%	0–2%	less than the region
City of Durham	Data centers and large loads	0.4%	1	332	83%	0–2%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Litigation and settlements	0.4%	1	332	83%	0–2%	within the usual range
City of Durham	Drugs and addiction	0.3%	1	332	83%	0–2%	within the usual range
City of Durham	DEI programs	0.3%	1	332	83%	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.