Tim Merrick, Democrats
NC House District 20
Career: Retired chiropractor
Education: Doctor of Chiropractic
Q: What qualifies you to serve in the North Carolina legislature?
A: I bring a combination of experience in public service, healthcare, education, and small business, along with a perspective shaped by a lifetime of working with people from many different backgrounds.
For more than 45 years, I have been a small-business owner. I have signed both sides of a paycheck, managed budgets, employed people, and understood the responsibility that comes with making decisions that affect other people’s livelihoods. As a healthcare professional, I have spent my career listening to people, identifying problems, and working with them to find practical solutions.
My service on the New Hanover County Board of Education has given me firsthand experience with the challenges facing our public schools and with governing in an environment where people do not always agree. That experience has reinforced for me that effective leadership requires listening, preparation, transparency, and a willingness to work with people who see things differently. I don’t believe any one person or political party has all the answers. I will bring an independent voice, a collaborative approach, and decades of real-world experience to Raleigh. I will listen first, work across differences, and stay focused on practical solutions that improve people’s lives.
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 like to sponsor legislation that gives local governments greater flexibility to address local needs without having to seek permission from Raleigh for every solution. North Carolina has traditionally placed significant authority over local governments in the General Assembly. I believe there are areas where decisions can be made more effectively by the people who are closest to the communities affected by them, while still maintaining appropriate statewide standards.
One example is managing the effects of rapid development. In growing communities, new development can place significant demands on roads, water and sewer systems, public safety, and other infrastructure, while also contributing to the need for more affordable and workforce housing. Yet, local governments do not always have the authority or flexibility to negotiate with developers over how those impacts should be addressed.
I would support giving local governments additional tools to negotiate appropriate infrastructure contributions associated with new development, and to address affordable and workforce housing as part of the development process. Those tools should be reasonable, transparent, and tied to the impacts and needs created by development rather than becoming an open-ended burden on builders or new housing.
More broadly, I would like to examine North Carolina’s laws governing local authority and determine where they can be amended to give counties and municipalities greater ability to solve local problems locally. State government has an important role, but Raleigh does not always need to make every decision for every community in North Carolina.
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: Clean water and clean air are fundamental to the health of our communities, and industries that release toxic chemicals into our environment should be held accountable for the pollution they create. I support the principle that the cost of addressing industrial pollution should not simply be passed along to taxpayers and water customers while the source of that pollution goes unaddressed. I believe accountability should occur at four levels:
1. Disclosure and monitoring: Industries should test for identified contaminants of concern and disclose what they are discharging so regulators and the public know what is entering our water and air. Monitoring is essential, but monitoring alone does not reduce pollution.
2. Enforceable permit and discharge limits: Where sound science and reliable testing support specific limits, those limits should be incorporated into permits and consistently enforced. Voluntary reduction plans can be part of the solution, but they should not substitute for enforceable standards when those standards are warranted.
3. Source reduction: When PFAS, 1,4-dioxane, or other harmful contaminants are being released, responsible industries should be required to take reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate those releases at the source. Preventing contamination before it enters our rivers and drinking-water supplies is preferable to relying solely on downstream treatment after the pollution has occurred.
4. Polluter pays: When an identifiable industrial source causes contamination, the responsible party should bear an appropriate share of the cost of reducing the discharge, cleaning up the contamination, and protecting affected water supplies. Ratepayers should not be left paying the entire bill to remove pollution that someone else introduced into their water.
I would support enforceable standards for additional PFAS compounds when those standards are supported by sound, current science and reliable testing methods. We should not assume that PFOA and PFOS are the only PFAS compounds that warrant concern, but standards should be based on the best available evidence and updated as that evidence develops.
For our community that depends on the Cape Fear River for drinking water, this is not an abstract issue. We have experienced firsthand the consequences of contaminants entering a water supply and the enormous expense of removing them afterward. North Carolina should emphasize prevention and accountability at the source rather than placing the primary burden of treatment on downstream communities and their ratepayers. Businesses deserve clear, predictable, science-based rules, and North Carolinians deserve confidence that the water they drink and the air they breathe are safe.
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 believe North Carolina’s school funding system needs improvement, but I do not believe that simply replacing the current allotment system with a weighted student formula will, by itself, solve the problem.
Both approaches can work and both can fail. What matters most is whether the funding is adequate to meet the educational needs of our students and whether it is distributed equitably based on those needs. A weighted formula with an inadequate base amount or poorly designed weights will still underfund schools. Likewise, an allotment system can work if the allotments are adequately funded, reflect the actual costs of educating students, and provide appropriate flexibility to local school districts.
Any reform should recognize that some students require additional resources to have the same opportunity to succeed. Students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with other identified needs may require additional support. We must also account for differences among districts, including their size, local resources, and ability to raise revenue.
I also believe local school districts need reasonable flexibility to direct resources where they are most needed. The people working with students every day are often in the best position to identify those needs. That flexibility should be accompanied by transparency and accountability for how public dollars are spent.
My approach would be to evaluate any proposed funding formula against several basic questions: Does it provide adequate resources to educate our students? Does it distribute those resources equitably according to student and district needs? Does it give local districts reasonable flexibility? Is it transparent enough that taxpayers can understand where the money is going? And does it improve educational opportunities rather than simply shifting existing dollars from one district to another?
I am open to improving the current allotment system or moving toward a weighted student model, but I would not support changing the formula simply for the sake of changing it. The goal should be an adequately funded, equitable, transparent, and flexible system that puts the educational needs of students first.
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: License plate readers can be a valuable law-enforcement tool, but they also collect information about the movements of people who are not suspected of committing a crime. That raises legitimate privacy concerns.
Given that Flock Safety now recommends a seven-day retention period, I support reducing North Carolina’s current 90-day limit to seven days, while allowing law enforcement to preserve specific records longer when they are relevant to an active criminal or missing-person investigation or pursuant to a warrant.
I also believe we should strengthen safeguards governing who can access this data, how it can be used and shared, and how searches are audited. Technology can help law enforcement protect the public, but we should not create an unnecessarily long-term record of the movements of people who are not suspected of wrongdoing.
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 direction of the recent changes to North Carolina’s film incentive program, particularly the increased project caps and the new Micro-Budget Production Grant Fund. The higher caps make North Carolina more competitive for major productions, while the micro-budget program can help smaller and independent productions build talent and experience here at home.
My concern is that we have expanded what individual productions can receive without adequately addressing the overall funding available. With larger project caps, a $31 million annual recurring appropriation can be committed quickly, leaving fewer opportunities for other productions and making it harder for North Carolina to compete consistently throughout the year.
I support increasing the recurring funding for the program and reviewing the annual disbursement structure so that qualified productions are not lost simply because they arrive at the wrong point in the budget cycle. Any additional investment should continue to be tied to verified North Carolina spending and measurable economic activity.
Film is an important industry in southeastern North Carolina. A successful incentive program should attract major productions while also creating opportunities for smaller productions, supporting North Carolina workers and businesses, and providing the predictability necessary to keep productions coming back.
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 should evaluate data center tax exemptions based on their total costs and benefits rather than assuming that either keeping or eliminating them is always the right answer.
Data centers can significantly increase a community’s property tax base and bring substantial capital investment, even when they receive sales tax exemptions. At the same time, they can place significant demands on electricity, water, and infrastructure.
I support greater transparency so we can determine what these incentives cost, how much state and local tax revenue data centers actually generate, and what infrastructure costs they create. Data centers should also bear the costs of infrastructure required specifically to serve their operations rather than shifting those costs to other ratepayers or taxpayers.
If the overall return to North Carolina and the host community justifies the incentive, it can be a worthwhile economic-development tool. If it does not, I would support reducing or eliminating the exemption. Economic-development incentives should earn their keep.
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 oppose tolling the replacement Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and would vote against legislation authorizing a toll on it.
This bridge is essential public infrastructure connecting New Hanover and Brunswick counties and supporting the Port of Wilmington and our regional economy. The people crossing it every day are going to work, school, medical appointments, and businesses on both sides of the river. They should not have to pay a toll every time they cross.
I also oppose financing arrangements that would allow a private company to control or profit from tolls on infrastructure our region depends upon.
The larger problem is that North Carolina can no longer rely so heavily on the gas tax to fund transportation. More fuel-efficient and electric vehicles will continue to erode that revenue base. I support developing a broader, sustainable transportation funding system that fairly reflects use of our roads and draws from existing transportation revenues, appropriate state funding, and federal infrastructure dollars.
We need to replace the bridge. We should not have to put a toll between people and their jobs to do it.
Q: Would you vote to implement an independent commission to draw legislative and congressional lines? Why or why not?
A: Yes. I support an independent commission to draw North Carolina’s legislative and congressional districts.
Voters should choose their representatives; representatives should not be able to choose their voters. Allowing legislators to draw the districts in which they or their colleagues will run creates an inherent conflict of interest, regardless of which political party is in power.
An independent commission should operate under clear, objective criteria, with transparency, public input, and safeguards that prevent either political party from controlling the process. Districts should reflect population, comply with state and federal law, respect communities and geographic boundaries where possible, and be drawn without protecting individual politicians or political parties.
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: In the legislature, governing is about choices and priorities. I am proud that North Carolina is consistently recognized as one of the best states for business, but our goal should not simply be to win a ranking. A strong economy should translate into a better quality of life for the people who live and work here.
I have often said that I would rather be 10th in the nation for business if it meant being significantly better in education, healthcare, wages, infrastructure, and quality of life. We do not have to choose between a strong business climate and strong communities, but we do have to make balanced investments in both.
Economic development should mean more than attracting companies. It should mean creating good-paying jobs, preparing people for those jobs through strong public schools, community colleges, and universities, and making sure working families can afford housing, childcare, healthcare, and transportation.
When evaluating budgets, tax policy, and economic incentives, I will ask a simple question: Are the choices we are making improving opportunities and quality of life for the people of North Carolina? Being the best state for business means more when we are also working to make North Carolina one of the best states in which to live, work, and raise a family.
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.