NC Senate District 8
Rick Combes, Democratic challenger
Career: Chemical engineer, plant manager, rideshare driver.
Education: Degrees in BSChE, MBA
Q: What qualifies you to serve in the North Carolina legislature?
A: I’m running for the North Carolina legislature because I bring a practical, science-based approach to public service. As a chemical engineer with an MBA, I understand infrastructure, clean water, and responsible budgeting. I focus on solutions that strengthen communities and protect our state’s future.
Q. What is a bill you would like to sponsor or co-sponsor and what is a bill you want to repeal — or even amend? Why?
A: I would sponsor legislation allowing counties and municipalities to adopt impact fees so new development helps pay for the infrastructure it requires — roads, water systems, schools, and emergency services.
North Carolina is growing fast, but local governments often lack the tools to keep up. Right now, they rely heavily on property taxes and bonds, which means existing residents shoulder the cost of growth. Impact fees would ensure that when large subdivisions or commercial projects come in, they contribute to the infrastructure they depend on.
I would amend the Opportunity Scholarship Program to add accountability and transparency. The program currently sends hundreds of millions of public dollars to private schools without requiring standardized reporting or performance data.
The amendment would ensure:
- Academic reporting from participating schools
- Financial oversight
- Protection of public-school resources
- Priority for rural and low-income families
Q: What will you do to hold industry accountable for pollution of toxic chemicals, such as PFAS or 1,4 dioxane, in the water or air? Will you support enforcing additional maximum contaminant levels of PFAS compounds, aside from PFOA or PFOS; how, if so?
A: I support: adding maximum contaminant levels for additional PFAS classes — including short-chain PFAS — based on current toxicology and EPA guidance. This closes the loophole where companies simply switch to “replacement PFAS” that are just as harmful.
I support: A requirement that industries that discharge into rivers or municipal systems would be required to use continuous monitoring technology and report PFAS and 1,4-dioxane levels publicly. No more self-reporting without verification.
I support: If a company pollutes, they pay — for cleanup, filtration upgrades, and long-term monitoring. This protects ratepayers and ensures polluters don’t shift costs onto families.
I support: legislation requiring industries to demonstrate that PFAS use is essential and that safer alternatives are not available. This mirrors successful policies in other states.
Additionally, many small towns cannot afford PFAS-capable filtration. I would support grants and state-matching funds so every community — not just wealthy ones — can meet new standards.
Q: Is the public school allotment formula sufficient or does the legislature need to change it? Explain what your plan is for this issue.
A: I do not believe the current public-school allotment formula is sufficient. It’s outdated, overly complex, and doesn’t reflect the real costs our schools face today — especially in fast-growing counties and in rural communities that struggle to keep up. The formula also doesn’t fully account for the needs of students with disabilities, English-language learners, or schools dealing with concentrated poverty.
My plan is to modernize the allotment formula so funding follows actual student needs and the real cost of educating them. That means updating how we fund exceptional children’s services, strengthening support for rural districts, and ensuring fast-growing communities aren’t left behind. I also want greater transparency so parents and taxpayers can clearly see how dollars flow and whether the formula is meeting its goals.
North Carolina’s students deserve a funding system built for today — not one patched together over decades. I will work to make sure the legislature delivers a formula that is fair, predictable, and aligned with the needs of every child in our state. Making sure each child is educated is as important as making sure my child is educated.
Q: State law allows law enforcement agencies, including the State Bureau of Investigation, to store data captured by license plate reading cameras (Flock cameras) for up to 90 days. Since the CEO of Flock cameras has now recommended agencies reduce the time camera data is stored down to seven days, would you make it a priority to change state law to follow this recommendation?
A: Yes — I would make it a priority to change state law so license-plate reader data is stored for no more than seven days. I support law enforcement having the tools they need to solve crimes, but I also believe strongly in protecting people’s privacy. When the CEO of Flock recommends reducing retention from 90 days to seven, that tells me two things:
1. Agencies can do their work effectively with far less data;
2. Long retention periods create unnecessary risks, including misuse, over-collection, and the possibility of tracking people’s movements without cause. I would introduce legislation to shorten the retention window to seven days, require strict access controls, and mandate clear reporting on how this data is used. My goal is to strike the right balance: give law enforcement what they need while ensuring North Carolinians’ civil liberties are protected.
If technology companies, privacy experts, and law enforcement all agree that seven days is enough, then our laws should reflect that.
Q: Do you support how the film grant program currently operates? Do you think the $31-million annual cap on award disbursements should be lifted? Do you think the General Assembly should allocate more money to the program?
A: I support the way North Carolina’s film grant program currently operates. It’s performance-based, it protects taxpayers, and it has brought steady jobs and investment back to our state. The program has proven that when productions come here, they spend money locally — on hotels, restaurants, construction, transportation, and small businesses.
I also believe the $31-million annual cap is too low for the level of demand we’re seeing. Other states with larger grant pools are landing projects that used to come to North Carolina. If we want to compete, we need a program that reflects today’s market.
I would support lifting the cap and increasing the overall allocation, as long as we maintain strong accountability and transparency. My goal is to grow the film industry in a way that supports local workers, strengthens small businesses, and keeps North Carolina competitive without putting taxpayers at risk. North Carolina has the talent, the landscapes, and the infrastructure — we just need a grant program sized to match the opportunity.
Q: Would you support rolling back the sales and use tax exemption for data centers to build in North Carolina? Explain.
A: I believe North Carolina must hold data-center developers to a much higher standard. These projects demand enormous amounts of electricity, water, land, and public infrastructure — and too often taxpayers end up subsidizing those costs while companies face little accountability.
That’s why I support rolling back or restructuring the sales and use tax exemption for data centers. If a company wants a tax break, it should meet strict requirements: responsible water use, energy-efficiency benchmarks, local hiring commitments, and real contributions to the infrastructure they rely on. Data centers should not get incentives unless they prove they are building responsibly and delivering measurable benefits to the community.
I’m not opposed to data-center growth — I’m opposed to unaccountable growth. North Carolina should compete for high-tech investment, but not by giving away taxpayer dollars with no strings attached. My priority is making sure companies meet clear performance standards, protect local resources, and pay their fair share for the public infrastructure they depend on. Responsible growth is good for North Carolina. Unchecked corporate subsidies are not.
Q: The current gas-tax funding system for the NCDOT no longer seems to efficiently support necessary projects – including the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement. Is tolling the answer; what other funding mechanisms would you support? Would you vote on legislation to allow the Turnpike Authority to toll the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge if it comes before you?
A: I believe North Carolina’s transportation funding system is broken, and the people of Wilmington should not be forced to carry the cost of a statewide economic asset. The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is not a “local” project — it is a critical link in the supply chain for the entire state. Wilmington is the Port City, and it’s time we start acting like it.
If the state relies on our port to move billions of dollars in goods, then the state must help pay for the infrastructure that makes that possible. I do not believe tolling should be the default answer. Tolling the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge would effectively tax only the people who live and work here, while the rest of North Carolina continues benefiting from the port without contributing to its upkeep. That’s not responsible, and it’s not fair.
I support statewide funding mechanisms that reflect the reality of modern transportation:
1. A statewide import-impact fee for goods entering through the Port of
Wilmington. If imports rely on our roads, bridges, and logistics network, then a small, targeted fee on containerized cargo could help fund the infrastructure that keeps the port competitive. Other states do this responsibly — North Carolina should too.
2. Modernizing transportation revenue The gas tax is collapsing. I support diversifying revenue through:
- A mileage-based user-fee pilot
- EV and heavy-vehicle fees that actually match road impact
- Freight-corridor fees for high-impact commercial traffic
These options spread responsibility across the entire state, not just one region.
3. Impact fees for growth-driven transportation needs. When development strains roads and bridges, developers should help pay for the infrastructure they rely on. Growth should pay for growth.
Q: Would you vote to implement an independent commission to draw legislative and congressional lines? Why or why not?
A: Yes — I would vote to implement an independent commission to draw legislative and congressional districts. North Carolina has spent far too many years watching politicians manipulate maps to protect themselves, and the result has been instability, lawsuits, and a loss of public trust. That’s not how representative government is supposed to work. I believe we must return to a system where voters elect their representatives — not politicians picking their constituents. When elected officials draw their own districts, they stop being public servants and start acting like long-term politicians focused on self-preservation. That’s the opposite of what North Carolinians deserve. Senators and representatives in North Carolina must be civil servants, accountable to the people, not career politicians carving out safe districts. An independent commission is the best way to restore fairness, transparency, and legitimacy to our elections. It ensures districts reflect real communities, not political strategy, and it helps rebuild trust in a process that has been abused for decades.
My priority is simple: a redistricting system that puts the people of North Carolina first — not the politicians.
Q: In terms of economic development, North Carolina gets high marks for business, but middling and lower marks for worker satisfaction and quality of life. What would you do to improve these metrics for state residents?
A: North Carolina gets high marks for business, but that doesn’t mean much if workers don’t feel supported, families can’t afford to live here, and parents aren’t confident their children will get a world-class education. Economic development must improve life for the people who make our economy run — not just boost corporate rankings.
To raise worker satisfaction and quality of life, I will focus on the fundamentals that
actually matter to families:
1. Strengthen public education so families want to build their lives here: A strong economy depends on strong schools. If parents don’t believe their children will thrive here, they won’t stay — and companies won’t either. I will work to:
- Modernize the school-funding formula
- Support teacher pay that keeps talent in the classroom
- Invest in safe, modern school buildings
- Expand career-technical pathways so students graduate ready for high-paying jobs.
Education is the backbone of quality of life. When schools are strong, communities grow, and workers feel confident about their future.
2. Raise the standard for jobs we recruit: If a company wants taxpayer support, it must deliver real value for workers — not just executives. I will push for incentives tied to:
- Good wages
- Strong benefits
- Safe working conditions
- Local hiring
- Long-term commitments to communities
- Economic development should reward companies that invest in people.
3. Invest in the everyday essentials that make life livable. Workers judge quality of life by what they experience every day. I will prioritize:
- Affordable housing near job centers
- Reliable public transit and modern roads
- Clean drinking water and environmental protections
- Accessible childcare
- Healthcare access, especially in rural areas
These are the building blocks of a stable, healthy life.
4. Expand workforce development and upward mobility. I will strengthen partnerships between community colleges, universities, and employers to create clear pathways into high-paying careers. That includes apprenticeships, technical training, reskilling programs, and support for veterans entering civilian jobs.
My guiding principle: North Carolina’s success should be measured not just by business rankings, but by whether people can build stable, healthy, fulfilling lives here — and whether parents believe this is the best place for their children’s future. I want a state where workers feel valued, families feel supported, and communities feel invested in. That’s how we improve worker satisfaction and quality of life.