City of Boise Housing Pilot Evaluation 2025

Report Authors

• Vanessa Fry, PhD, Associate Research Faculty, Idaho Policy Institute
• Krista Paulsen, Phd, Professor, School of Public Service

This report was prepared by Idaho Policy Institute at Boise State University and commissioned by the City of Boise.

Recommended citation: Fry, V. & Paulsen, K. (2025). City of Boise Housing Pilot Evaluation. Idaho Policy Institute. Boise, ID: Boise State University.

We gratefully acknowledge the research contributions of Idaho Policy Institute interns Olivia Dillon and Spencer Reed. Their work supported the development of this report. For media and other inquiries please contact: Vanessa Fry at vanessafry@boisestate.edu

Download a printable pdf of this report

Executive Summary

In response to rising housing affordability challenges, the City of Boise partnered with LEAP Housing to pilot two innovative land use strategies: permitting Moveable Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOWs) and Recreational Vehicles (RVs) to be sited long-term on residential properties. This evaluation—conducted by the Idaho Policy Institute (IPI)—builds on the City’s Harvard-Bloomberg Innovation Track work and aims to assess the viability of these approaches in informing future land use code changes.

The evaluation team interviewed participating property owners, tenants, neighbors, and staff from LEAP and the City’s Planning and Development Services. Additional data were gathered through site visits and document review. Six THOWs and three RV sites were included in this review.

Findings indicate that property owners were often motivated by a desire to address the housing crisis, generate supplemental income, and utilize available land. Most were willing to invest labor and resources to prepare their sites, though infrastructure costs were a limiting factor for some. LEAP played a crucial liaison role, particularly in navigating permitting and tenant placement. Tenant relationships were generally positive and rents ranged from $600–$650/month including utilities.

Tenants were attracted to the pilot for its ability to offer more affordable housing closer to their places of work. Tenants also mentioned the opportunity to downscale their living as a way to simplify their lives.

Neighbor reactions were mixed but generally neutral or positive. Where concerns did arise, they were often related to communication, privacy, or neighborhood aesthetics.

Key considerations for scale-up include ensuring adequate support for first-time participants, managing infrastructure costs, fostering positive neighbor engagement, and refining communication strategies—particularly with neighboring renters. Overall, the pilot shows promise as a flexible, small-scale approach to expanding Boise’s affordable housing options.

Return to the beginning of the report

Project Background

In response to Boise’s growing housing affordability crisis, the City of Boise participated in the Harvard-Bloomberg City Leadership Initiative Innovation Track in 2021. Through this initiative, the City identified and launched two housing pilot programs designed to test innovative, small-scale solutions: (1) an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) incentive program and (2) a land use code change to allow siting of moveable tiny homes on wheels (THOWs). The latter was subsequently expanded to include recreational vehicles (RVs). Together, these pilots aimed to explore flexible, lower-cost housing alternatives while generating insights to inform long-term policy development.

The City contracted with LEAP Charities to implement both pilots, and with the Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) to evaluate their implementation and outcomes. While the ADU pilot was ultimately discontinued due to high construction costs and rising interest rates, the THOW and RV pilots have proceeded in partnership with Boise residents and property owners interested in providing temporary, affordable housing options on private land.

Moveable tiny homes, defined as housing units under 400 square feet built on trailers using traditional residential materials, differ from RVs in appearance, construction standards, and intended use. Both pilot programs allow selected Boise residents to host a THOW or RV on their residential property for 12–18 months. LEAP assists with site evaluation, permitting, and matching tenants with hosts.

This evaluation builds on earlier work conducted in 2023–2024 and focuses on documenting the experiences of pilot participants—property owners, tenants, and neighbors—as well as identifying implementation successes and challenges. Findings are intended to inform the City’s ongoing exploration of zoning and land use strategies that increase housing access while maintaining neighborhood integrity.

Return to the beginning of the report

Methods

We contacted each property owner and tenant participating in the THOW/RV Pilot, as well as property owners who made substantial progress through the site evaluation process before withdrawing. Our initial email communication explained the nature of this evaluation project and requested an interview at their convenience. If we did not receive a response, we followed up by email and eventually by phone. The table below summarizes the number of individuals in each category who were contacted and interviewed.

Formal interviews were conducted by one or more PI; trained undergraduate research assistants were also present for most in-person interviews. Interviews typically lasted from 30 to 60 minutes. In-person interviews were conducted at locations of the participants’ choosing, usually at their homes or offices. A minority of interviews were conducted using Zoom or over the phone. Each participant was provided an informed consent statement in advance of the interview and provided opportunities to ask questions about both the interview process and the project before granting consent orally. With permission of participants, most were recorded using a voice memo application or through Zoom’s recording capability and contemporaneous notes were taken longhand and/or using a laptop.

Each time we interviewed a property owner on site, we contacted the neighbors on the notification list by leaving a letter at the neighboring property’s door. Despite contacting 24 neighbors through this outreach, we were able to arrange only 2 formal interviews with adjoining neighbors. We also conducted 2 additional brief interviews with neighbors we met outside their homes while leaving letters.

Finally, we spoke with key personnel at both LEAP Housing and the City of Boise’s Planning and Development Services to learn about their experiences with the Pilot.

In addition to our interviews, we reviewed key documents including pilot project proposals and plans, parcel maps, and communications with neighbors.

Return to the beginning of the report

Roles of City of Boise and LEAP

The successful implementation of the THOW and RV pilot programs relied on a close working partnership between the City of Boise and LEAP Housing. Each played a distinct, complementary role in launching and supporting these innovative housing solutions.

LEAP Housing served as the primary point of contact for property owners and prospective tenants, guiding them through the process from initial inquiry to final siting. LEAP conducted early outreach via press releases and online forms, screened interested applicants, and conducted feasibility assessments. LEAP’s primary point of contact was instrumental in evaluating site suitability, coordinating permitting processes, and troubleshooting infrastructure challenges. He also supported tenants and owners through often complex logistical and technical hurdles, such as utility connections and code compliance. LEAP’s role as a hands-on liaison—particularly for property owners with limited experience navigating city planning processes—was consistently cited as a key contributor to pilot success.

The City of Boise, through Planning and Development Services, provided essential oversight, permitting, and policy guidance. Initially, City staff had limited precedent or policy guidance to follow and applied ADU standards as a starting point. Staff worked collaboratively with LEAP to vet site applications, clarify code ambiguities, and develop conditions of approval. The City also helped evolve the neighbor notification process from a consensus model to a simpler notification-based approach, enabling more feasible implementation.

Throughout the pilot, City staff emphasized the importance of maintaining safety, legal compliance, and neighborhood compatibility while also remaining flexible and open to innovation. Staff reported that the pilot status gave them the space to experiment and refine internal processes—a valuable learning opportunity as the City explores permanent code updates.

Together, LEAP and the City of Boise navigated logistical, regulatory, and community dynamics to test new forms of housing. Staff quickly learned about the idiosyncrasies of THOW and RV placement in the context of developed neighborhoods as well as how property owners’ levels of preparation would affect the evaluation and implementation process. Their ongoing coordination enabled a responsive, adaptive approach to implementation—one that balances policy intent, community concerns, and the practical realities of small-scale infill housing.

Return to the beginning of the report

Property Owners

Characteristics of Owner Participants

We observed three somewhat distinct qualities among the property owners we spoke with. First, many expressed a concern regarding housing availability and affordability in the Boise area. When asked about their motivations for entering the pilot program, many property owners described a desire to be part of solving Boise’s housing crisis. In some instances, they expressed interest in assisting specific populations for whom the THOW or RV programs might be a good fit, including groups like veterans, traveling nurses, seniors, or young people saving to buy a home.

Second, many of the property owners were interested in the income that the THOW/RV rental would provide. For some property owners, the program’s income potential was a primary driver; for others, it was one of a number of motivations (as one owner put it, “A little money doesn’t hurt”). While all property owners expressed a desire to minimize the expenses associated with THOW/RV infrastructure, this seemed particularly important to participants for whom income was a primary motivation (indeed, high infrastructure costs ultimately led one potential participant to withdraw from the program).

Several of the property owners were already landlords, either renting rooms in their homes, or having rented other properties. They were familiar with the administrative tasks and interpersonal skills that would be required in renting to a THOW or RV tenant, and that familiarity appeared to ease concerns about taking on this role. Renting a site (versus a conventional dwelling) can also reduce concerns about potential landlord-tenant conflicts. For instance, one property owner noted that while tenants’ upkeep of conventional dwellings led to negative experiences as a landlord, this was not a concern with the THOW as the landlords did not own the dwelling. While owners were generally comfortable with the landlord role, some noted that a course, guidebook or online community of THOW “hosts” would be a helpful resource.

Finally, most property owners were willing to commit their own labor to administrative and practical demands of the THOW/RV pilot. The majority of owners we spoke with described completing a property improvement task, such as trenching for new plumbing or installing or moving fencing. In some instances, they completed this work after receiving estimates that would have made participation in the pilot uneconomical. For example, an owner who received a $10,000 estimate for sewer line installation completed the tasks with rented equipment and the help of a neighbor for $1500.

In addition to owners’ willingness to take on the “DIY” elements of THOW preparations, successful participation also turned on characteristics of the sites themselves. Site characteristics such as the length of sewer line required and the idiosyncrasies of the site’s electrical infrastructure (poles, transformers, etc.) were among the most expensive elements, and effectively disqualified some owners from participating. For others, characteristics of site access proved disqualifying, whether access to maneuver a THOW onto the site or routine access to the THOW/RV once sited. Meanwhile, some sites had qualities that eased installation and lowered the barrier to participation for property owners. For example, on one lot, RV hookups were already in place; at another, the home sat on a double lot that already included a second electric meter.

In sum, these property owners could reasonably be characterized as “early adopters”: those who are willing to step into unknown territory and take some risks to engage in a new type of venture. Their patience and flexibility regarding new processes, and willingness to take on work themselves, were key determinants of their success with the program.

Experience with the Process

While property owners were not always certain how they had first heard of the pilot program, many believed that they had heard about it through the media (a few mentioned BoiseDev), an email from the City, or social media. Most had already formulated some interest in this type of project based on their awareness of tiny homes or their property’s existing on-site RV parking. Owners then reached out to LEAP (often using the Google Form) and began the process of site evaluation.

The neighbor notification process was not a barrier for the property owners we spoke with (even those who sent registered letters). They found the use of the template letter straightforward. Although two of the property owners we interviewed received some negative feedback from neighbors, neither indicated that this proved an obstacle to moving forward with participation.

From expression of interest to finalization of site improvements and move-in, the process took about six months. Actual timelines varied depending on characteristics of the site, and in some instances, such as when substantial infrastructure was already in place or a deadline approaching, the process moved more quickly.

Our conversations with property owners made apparent the importance of having a knowledgeable point of contact who can help guide people through the process. Most homeowners never interact with Planning and Development Services (PDS), and are unfamiliar with the vocabulary and processes of planning and land development. Some processes, such as creating a PLN Number and the CZC application, proved particularly challenging for those who had not already had some interaction with PDS. For these property owners and others, LEAP staff served as an indispensable resource. For instance, LEAP’s point of contact helped property owners understand what kinds of materials would need to be submitted to PDS. Property owners were all on a first-name basis with LEAP’s point of contact, and described him in unequivocally positive terms.

For the most part, tenants were identified with the assistance of LEAP. Property owners found this element of the process relatively easy and straightforward. Property owners did not report any conflicts with tenants. Owners reported charging $600 to $650 per month, and in many cases, this included utilities. Rents were set using guidelines provided by LEAP, and took into account property owners’ additional ongoing costs such as utilities and increased property taxes. A unique aspect of the landlord-tenant relationship was the need to educate tenants regarding THOW maintenance concerns, such as monitoring of sewer lines and prevention of frozen pipes (this was noted by a property owner who also owned the THOW, but not by others whose tenants brought THOWs to the sites).

One challenge associated with the pilot’s process was the need to have a tenant identified and a lease agreement in place before the site was prepared. This required something of a leap of faith on the tenants’ parts—a willingness to accept that the required site preparation would be completed by a given date. It also required identification of tenants needing a site within a few months, but not right away. These barriers may have narrowed the potential tenant pool, but they are also specific to the pilot program and may not prove to be issues in a more permanent implementation of a THOW or RV program.

Costs and Reimbursements Reported in Owner Interviews

Return to the beginning of the report

Tenants

Our interview with one tenant offers insight into the lived experience of those residing in a tiny home on wheels (THOW) as part of the pilot program. This participant’s journey into tiny home living was shaped by both professional expertise—specifically a background in construction and carpentry—and a desire for a more affordable, manageable living environment. Originally intending to sell the unit, which cost approximately $60,000–$75,000 to build, the tenant encountered significant barriers related to financing and placement, ultimately choosing to live in the THOW themself.

The tenant found their current placement through a connection with a property owner already participating in the pilot. They described the living experience as generally positive, but not without challenges—particularly in relation to site infrastructure, insulation during colder months, and storage space. Monthly utility costs (including rent, trash, and sewer) totaled around $600, a price point they considered reasonable but requiring careful budgeting, especially in winter when propane needs increase.

The tenant expressed a strong interest in building community among tiny home residents and noted the absence of ongoing engagement from program organizers after initial outreach. They emphasized the value of peer support for navigating the logistical and technical aspects of THOW living, such as site preparation, utility connections, and seasonal maintenance. While their relationship with neighbors has been largely uneventful, they recognized the importance of communication and aesthetics in maintaining positive neighborhood relations.

Property owners consistently described their tenants in positive terms. While relationships were generally cordial but not close, owners emphasized that tenants were respectful, responsible, and proactive in communicating about site logistics. Several owners noted that tenants took care to maintain or improve their homes and outdoor areas, which helped mitigate potential concerns from neighbors. In the few cases where minor questions arose—such as those related to parking, noise, or upkeep—owners reported that tenants were responsive and solutions were reached easily. Owners appreciated that many tenants were mission-aligned with the goals of the pilot and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to live affordably in Boise. As one owner put it, “I’m glad that [the City of Boise is] moving in the direction of legalizing one affordable housing method . . . . I think tiny homes are a great way for people to save money.”

Overall, this experience underscores the affordability and flexibility that THOWs can offer, while also highlighting the need for clear program communication and community-building support to ensure long-term success.

Return to the beginning of the report

Neighbors

Our contacts with neighbors were limited in number (two formal interviews and two on-the-fly interviews) and for the most part positive. For the most part, neighbors did not respond to our requests for interviews.

Three of the four neighbors we spoke with had neutral or positive responses to the THOW in their neighborhood (each of those neighbors were near the same THOW site). For instance, one neighbor expressed support for tiny homes in general and for the recent change in the City’s ADU policy, and reported no concerns with the THOW across the alley from his residence. Another remarked that he preferred the THOW to some other recent housing additions in his neighborhood. Of the three neighbors with positive or neutral views, none perceived any negative impacts on the neighborhood or their property associated with the THOW. None of these individuals had commented prior to the THOW’s installation.

Neighbors of another THOW had a decidedly different perspective. These neighbors responded to our letter in part because they felt their views had not been considered before the THOW was approved. At that time, these neighbors had conveyed concerns regarding tenant parking, the property owners’ long-term commitment to the THOW, the owners’ ability to effectively manage the property remotely, and the siting of the THOW. They perceived that their objections were not appropriately registered or addressed. Since installation, the neighbors’ primary concern has been with the siting of the THOW and its impact on the privacy of their back yard, and, in turn, the value of their property. Despite these ongoing concerns, they acknowledged that the THOW is attractive and that the upkeep of their neighbor’s property has improved since the THOW was sited there.

An important question regarding the experience of neighbors is how successful the neighbor notification process was. One neighbor we interviewed — a homeowner — indicated that he was pleased to have been notified by letter. However, in neighborhoods with large numbers of renters, it is unclear whether residents (as opposed to property owners) were made aware that a THOW or RV would be installed nearby. Based on our limited engagement with neighbors, we expect that most neighbors will not have an issue with this new land use, but implementation of any permanent program should consider whether and how renter neighbors are informed.

Return to the beginning of the report

Considerations

As the City of Boise evaluates the future of the THOW and RV pilots, several key considerations have emerged that will be critical to the successful scale-up of these alternative housing models.

Scalability and Site Suitability

One of the central questions for expansion is how many eligible lots exist with both the physical characteristics and motivated ownership necessary to support a THOW or RV. Parcels with sufficient setbacks, utility access, and off-street parking are limited, particularly in neighborhoods with dense development or older housing stock. Access for THOW delivery also creates challenges. While the current pilot demonstrates feasibility, broader implementation will require proactive strategies to identify and engage suitable property owners, including tools to assess parcel eligibility and targeted outreach to likely early adopters.

Staff Time and Administrative Support

The pilot’s success has relied heavily on intensive staff involvement from both LEAP Housing and the City of Boise. This includes individualized site assessments, one-on-one guidance for applicants, coordination across departments, and responsiveness to neighbor concerns. Scaling the program will require streamlining application and permitting processes, clarifying code requirements, and possibly expanding staffing or partnering capacity to maintain responsiveness without overburdening City resources.

Safety Standards and Inspection Protocols

As City staff have noted, safety remains a top priority—particularly with regard to electrical and sewer hookups, weatherization, and structural stability. The City may consider adopting inspection standards, such as those used by the National Organization of Alternative Housing (NOAH), to provide clarity and assurance without unduly increasing barriers to participation.

Neighbor Relations and Visual Integration

While most neighbor feedback was neutral or positive, concerns related to aesthetics, privacy, and perceived lack of input highlight the importance of thoughtful communication. Future policy could encourage or require screening measures—such as fencing, strategic siting, or tree planting—to minimize visual impacts and foster neighbor acceptance. Continued refinement of the notification process, including outreach to renters, would support transparency and trust.

User-Friendly Navigation and Support

Pilot participants frequently cited the importance of having a knowledgeable liaison to guide them through technical and permitting requirements. Maintaining a novice-friendly point of contact—whether through City staff, a nonprofit partner, or both—will be vital for enabling broader participation and minimizing drop-off due to confusion or frustration. Developing an online guidebook, course, FAQ, and/or peer support network (for tenants
as well as landlords) would further assist participants.

Property Tax Implications

Finally, some property owners expressed concern that the addition of THOWs or RVs could result in increased property taxes, especially if infrastructure upgrades are assessed as improvements. Clarifying how participation may (or may not) affect property valuations will be important to ensure informed decision-making and continued interest in the program.

Taken together, these considerations suggest that while THOWs and RVs represent a promising infill housing strategy, successful expansion will require both policy clarity and continued support for those navigating this new terrain. The pilot has demonstrated that there is a core group of property owners and tenants motivated by a mix of civic engagement, affordability, and opportunity. However, barriers related to infrastructure costs, permitting complexity, and neighbor perceptions must be proactively addressed to ensure broader participation. As the City explores permanent code changes, the lessons from this pilot—especially the need for hands-on guidance, intentional neighbor communication, and clear safety standards—should inform future implementation.

The experience of this pilot also underscores the importance of balancing innovation with practical feasibility. While many participants were entrepreneurial and resourceful, most still required significant support to move their projects forward. Maintaining that level of assistance at scale will require strategic investment, streamlined processes, and the continued involvement of experienced partners like LEAP. If these supports are maintained or adapted for broader use, Boise has the potential to formalize THOW and RV siting as a scalable and flexible tool in its affordable housing strategy.

Ultimately, the pilot affirms that with thoughtful policy design and strong collaborative infrastructure, alternative housing models like THOWs and RVs can offer meaningful, lower-cost housing options—contributing to a more diverse, inclusive, and resilient housing landscape in Boise.