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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chatham County | Environment and sustainability | 16.4% | 126 | 742 | 47% | 14–20% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Budget and appropriations | 11.2% | 82 | 742 | 47% | 9–14% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Appointments and personnel | 9.4% | 70 | 742 | 47% | 8–12% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Subdivision and site plans | 8.5% | 65 | 742 | 47% | 7–11% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Land conversion and large development | 8.4% | 64 | 742 | 47% | 7–11% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Health and human services | 8.3% | 62 | 742 | 47% | 7–11% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Contracts and procurement | 8.2% | 60 | 742 | 47% | 6–10% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Housing and affordability | 7.2% | 54 | 742 | 47% | 6–9% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Parks and recreation | 7.2% | 53 | 742 | 47% | 6–9% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Data centers and large loads | 5.7% | 44 | 742 | 47% | 4–8% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Intergovernmental agreements | 5.3% | 40 | 742 | 47% | 4–7% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Grants and outside funding | 5.0% | 37 | 742 | 47% | 4–7% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Zoning text amendment | 4.9% | 37 | 742 | 47% | 4–7% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Farmland and open space | 4.8% | 37 | 742 | 47% | 4–7% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Tax rate and revaluation | 4.8% | 35 | 742 | 47% | 3–6% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Rezoning | 4.7% | 34 | 742 | 47% | 3–6% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Schools and education | 4.5% | 27 | 742 | 47% | 3–5% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Police and public safety | 3.9% | 28 | 742 | 47% | 3–5% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Elections and districts | 3.7% | 28 | 742 | 47% | 3–5% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Public facilities | 3.4% | 24 | 742 | 47% | 2–5% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Roads and transportation | 2.8% | 19 | 742 | 47% | 2–4% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Solid waste and recycling | 2.7% | 21 | 742 | 47% | 2–4% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Comprehensive plan | 2.6% | 19 | 742 | 47% | 2–4% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | State legislative agenda | 2.4% | 18 | 742 | 47% | 2–4% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Litigation and settlements | 2.1% | 16 | 742 | 47% | 1–3% | more than the region |
| Chatham County | Water and sewer | 1.9% | 13 | 742 | 47% | 1–3% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Economic development incentives | 1.6% | 12 | 742 | 47% | 1–3% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Fire and EMS | 1.6% | 11 | 742 | 47% | 1–3% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Ethics and transparency | 1.2% | 9 | 742 | 47% | 1–2% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Broadband and technology | 0.9% | 7 | 742 | 47% | 0–2% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Historic preservation | 0.9% | 6 | 742 | 47% | 0–2% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Faith and cultural communities | 0.9% | 6 | 742 | 47% | 0–2% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Transit | 0.8% | 5 | 742 | 47% | 0–2% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Bonds and debt | 0.7% | 5 | 742 | 47% | 0–2% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Stormwater and flooding | 0.6% | 4 | 742 | 47% | 0–1% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Arts and public art | 0.5% | 3 | 742 | 47% | 0–1% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Drugs and addiction | 0.4% | 3 | 742 | 47% | 0–1% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Fees and utility rates | 0.3% | 2 | 742 | 47% | 0–1% | less than the region |
| Chatham County | Homelessness and shelter | 0.3% | 2 | 742 | 47% | 0–1% | within the usual range |
| Chatham County | Surveillance and cameras | 0.3% | 2 | 742 | 47% | 0–1% | 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.