The Appeal Hearing for Allyson Knapp's Homestead Exemption

Why This Decision Matters

After three days of testimony, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) deliberated and voted to maintain the Homestead Exemption (HOEX) for Allyson Knapp. I am aware that this outcome was not the decision the County Assessor supported, and I do not take lightly the concerns he raised.

This was a difficult decision, and I carefully reviewed all documentation and testimony presented to the BOCC before reaching my conclusion. Cases like this are rare, and that is precisely why I believe it is important to explain the context and reasoning behind this decision.

The Unique Circumstances of This Case

What distinguishes this case from most others is that Ms. Knapp is a declared political opponent of Assessor Kovacs for the May 2026 primary election. When a matter before the county involves an elected official’s political opponent, it is essential to apply an especially high level of diligence to ensure not only fairness, but also that there is no appearance that public office is being used to target a political rival. That principle guided my approach throughout this process.

Understanding the Homestead Exemption

When a homeowner establishes residency in Idaho, they may apply for the Homestead Exemption, which provides a reduction in property taxes for a primary residence. This is a common benefit offered in many states.

If a homeowner’s eligibility is questioned, the Assessor’s Office typically considers multiple factors—not a single document—when determining residency. These factors often include:

• An Idaho driver’s license reflecting the property address

• Vehicle registration at the same address

• Voter registration listing the residence

• Utility billing and similar indicators of occupancy

Taken together, these items usually establish residency.

How This Case Unfolded

In this instance, when Ms. Knapp initially applied for the HOEX, she subsequently obtained an Idaho driver’s license, registered her vehicle, and registered to vote at the address in question. From 2022 through the present, those indicators remained consistent.

According to testimony, the Assessor’s Office received a citizen “tip” questioning Ms. Knapp’s residency. The Assessor personally conducted the investigation and personally arranged for delivery of the notification letter on November 25, 2025. This differed from standard practice, which typically involves staff conducting the investigation and notification being sent via USPS.

Additionally, the Assessor testified that he attempted to verify Ms. Knapp’s driver’s license address on November 29—after the letter had already been sent.

Another factor raised during testimony involved information from the Idaho State Tax Commission regarding income tax filings. While that information may be relevant and warrants consideration, state law and case law make clear that no single document or data point can be used on its own to determine residency or justify removal of a HOEX. Such information requires further investigation and must be weighed alongside other established indicators of residency.

Process Concerns Raised During the Hearing

As the BOCC reviewed this case, several procedural issues stood out:

• The investigation was conducted personally by the Assessor rather than by staff

• Requests for driver’s license verification occurred after formal notice was issued

• Large volumes of documentation were submitted to the BOCC late in the process, including materials unrelated to the specific residency address

• Some documents relied on third-party websites that are not considered verifiable sources for establishing residency

• Additional materials were provided to commissioners after testimony had concluded, when the appellant no longer had an opportunity to respond

Timeline of Submissions to the BOCC

• December 10 – First day of testimony: BOCC received documentation related only to Tax Commission income tax information

• December 18 – Second day of testimony: 193 pages of additional documents were emailed to the BOCC two minutes before the meeting

• December 23: A litigation hold notice was issued to the BOCC related to this case

• January 7 – Third day of testimony: An additional 65 documents were provided, including records dating back decades with no direct relevance to the residency question

Following the close of testimony, individual emails containing further information were sent to commissioners. Out of respect for due process, I did not open or review those communications.

Why I Am Sharing This With You

I am sharing this information because transparency matters—especially when decisions involve sensitive issues and heightened scrutiny. In recent weeks, concerns have been raised suggesting that my participation in this matter was biased or accusatory in nature. I take those assertions seriously, which is why I believe it is important to clearly explain the process, context, and reasoning behind the decision.

The Assessor, through counsel, issued a litigation hold memo prior to BOCC deliberations. Further, a broad public records request was submitted that would require a significant investment of county resources. These actions underscore the importance of ensuring that decisions are grounded in established law, documented evidence, and proper procedure.

Regardless of outcome, every elected official has a responsibility to act with care, fairness, and restraint—particularly when a decision involves a political opponent. Public trust depends not only on what we decide, but on how we arrive at those decisions.

This case required a careful balancing of evidence, law and process. While some people may disagree on the outcome (Ms. Knapp retained her HOEX), I am confident that the decision was reached with integrity, diligence, and respect for due process.

P.S. I respect Commissioner Eberlein’s decision to recuse himself from this matter. Given his personal friendship with the Assessor, his choice to step aside was appropriate and demonstrated sound judgment and respect for the integrity of the process.