By Rebecca Wallis
Yamhill County, OR – February 12, 2025
Yamhill County Commissioner David King made waves in a recent Board of Commissioners meeting by suggesting that his role as an elected official is too costly for him to afford. His remarks came during a discussion about commissioner expense reimbursements, a topic brought forth by Commissioner Mary Starrett to ensure financial accountability and transparency.
During the February 6, 2025, meeting, Commissioner King repeatedly resisted the idea of capping reimbursement expenses while simultaneously arguing that the role’s financial burden was too great for him. His concerns stood in contrast to his apparent lack of interest in addressing potential tax increases for Newberg residents, a topic discussed at a Newberg City Council meeting he recently watched.
Expense Reimbursements: A Longstanding Concern
You can watch the BOC meeting here with the discussion of commissioners expense reimbursement starting at 22:20 in the video.
Commissioner Starrett led the discussion by recalling past abuses of taxpayer-funded expense accounts. “Unfortunately, there were Commissioners who took advantage of the taxpayers…there was lots of travel, there were expenses…things that were not acceptable,” she stated. She emphasized that past spending habits led the previous board to make a conscious decision to forgo submitting expense reports altogether, a practice that significantly reduced costs.
Starrett further clarified that fiscal responsibility has remained a priority for the current board, with Commissioner Kit Johnston and Commissioner Mary Starrett never having taken reimbursements for expenses. Their commitment to avoiding unnecessary taxpayer burdens stands in contrast to previous practices.
County Counsel Christian Boenisch provided insight into the existing policy, stating that expense reports are generally approved unless they are “clearly, blatantly illegal.” He confirmed that commissioners’ expense reports are public records. Commissioner Starrett insisted transparency remains limited unless actively requested by the public.
King Pushes Back on Spending Limits
During the discussion, Commissioner King expressed discomfort with the idea of capping commissioner reimbursements. “I’m great with transparency. I’m very uncomfortable with capping…to cap how we do a job is limiting how we do the job.”
King’s comments, however, revealed a contradiction. While he argued against limiting taxpayer-funded expenses, he also implied that he personally could not afford to cover costs associated with his role. “I don’t know that I can necessarily afford to do that for very long…maybe my situation isn’t the commissioner that’s after me’s commitment.”
His remarks contrasted sharply with those of his colleagues, who pointed out that the commissioners receive generous taxpayer-funded benefits. Starrett reminded King that the county provides extensive coverage, including healthcare and retirement benefits. “The taxpayers are picking up the tab for some pretty rich health insurance…to the tune of $2,500 to $3,000 a month…so if you say, ‘Well, I can’t afford to pay mileage,’ but you’ve got taxpayers picking up dental, healthcare, vision…that argument doesn’t really hold water.”
King further escalated tensions by implying that his fellow commissioners were wealthy and, therefore, in a better position to cover their own expenses. “Maybe my situation isn’t the same as yours,” he argued. This assertion was quickly refuted by Starrett, who reminded him that she had deliberately declined raises and lived on a lower salary. “I make a heck of a lot less than you guys, but it’s my choice,” she said, emphasizing that financial discipline should apply equally to all commissioners.
King also voiced dissatisfaction with his salary, stating, “Let’s be honest, it’s not an amazing income.” He suggested that commissioners who rely solely on their position for income might struggle financially under a reimbursement cap. His remarks raised questions about whether he believed the role should come with higher compensation or more generous taxpayer-funded reimbursements.
Avoiding Taxpayer Concerns
While Commissioner King appeared deeply concerned with his personal expenses, he showed little interest in discussing potential tax increases that could impact Yamhill County residents. During commissioner announcements, King was asked about the matter but provided only a vague response. When Commissioner Starrett directly asked, “What tax?” to clarify the discussion for the public, King, who serves as the City of Newberg Liaison, replied:
“Uh, just their 3% one that they think they can do and, um, and releasing money to Downtown Association to help Economic Development down there was really kind of the two big things they talked about. It was more forecasting through the year of what they want to talk about, you know, and giving staff some direction. They haven’t fully, um, said yes on a tax or no and yeah, they’re working on it so. Watch the video.”
The 3% tax in question refers to a potential property tax increase that the Newberg City Council could implement in one or both of the next two years, as well as discussions regarding the disbursement of Transient Lodging Tax (TLT) funds. King’s failure to elaborate on the council’s authority to raise property taxes left the public with unanswered questions.
Starrett and Johnston Advocate for Fiscal Responsibility
Both Commissioner Starrett and Chair Kit Johnston pushed for more accountability in commissioner spending, with Johnston suggesting that the board implement a spending cap. “I actually was, am, wondering if we just go next level on this…we already have an allocation yearly that we’re allowed to spend…maybe we cap ourselves at a certain expense per year.”
Starrett agreed, noting that commissioners should not view their positions as an open-ended expense account. “We have to live within a budget just like our taxpayers do. To say, ‘I’m just going to spend what I need to spend’—I am dead set against that.”
King, however, resisted the idea of a spending limit, stating, “$1,500 is an unreasonable cap.” He also admitted outright that fiscal restraint was not part of his campaign platform, stating, “I didn’t run on those types of things.” This admission highlights a stark contrast between his approach and that of his colleagues, who have voluntarily refrained from seeking reimbursements for years.
The Path Forward
The board agreed on transparency measures, with County Counsel Boenisch committing to sharing expense reports with all commissioners before approval. However, the discussion surrounding a spending cap remains unresolved.
Commissioner Johnston proposed revisiting the issue in a year. “Let’s bring this up a year from now…because I really would like to dig deeper into really just putting a cap on this and it gets rid of a lot of questions.”
The debate over expense reimbursements reveals deeper tensions within the board: while some commissioners prioritize fiscal responsibility and taxpayer accountability, others appear more focused on ensuring their personal costs are covered. As the conversation continues, Yamhill County residents will be watching closely to see whether their elected officials are deeply committed to responsible spending—or just their own wallets.
Photo Credit: Yamhill County News File
Leave a Reply