alliance city nebraska profile volume iii

Alliance city

NEBRASKA PROFILE

VOLUME III

Volume III: City Profiles Alliance city

N E B R A S K A I N V E S T M E N T F I N A N C E A U T H O R I T Y

Nebraska Profile III.1.1 Final Report: March 26, 2021

Please visit the Nebraska State Profile Dashboard:

http://www.NEstats.org

For an online version of this profile with many additional

features including:

• Mapping • Interactive Charts and Tables • Data Downloads • Interactive Long Read • Interactive Tour • Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction Comparison • Download Additional Reports • And More

http://www.nestats.org/




Alliance city

DEMOGRAPHICS

Population Estimates

Table III.1.1 shows the population for Alliance city. The

population in Alliance city decreased from 8,491 persons

in 2010 to 8,092 persons in 2019, or by -4.7 percent.

Several pieces of data presented in the profile are only

available at the county level. A subset of the county level

data are presented here to give a more complete view of

Alliance city. Although a city may span several counties, for

the county level data pieces, Box Butte County was

selected. For a more in-depth county level view, please

refer to Box Butte County in Volume II of this profile.

Table III.1.1 Population Estimates

Alliance city Census Population Estimates

Year Population Percent Yearly

Change

2000 8,991 .

2001 8,884 -1.2%

2002 8,871 -0.1%

2003 8,711 -1.8%

2004 8,582 -1.5%

2005 8,515 -0.8%

2006 8,465 -0.6%

2007 8,530 0.8%

2008 8,598 0.8%

2009 8,510 -1%

2010 8,491 -0.2%

2011 8,500 0.1%

2012 8,466 -0.4%

2013 8,494 0.3%

2014 8,488 -0.1%

2015 8,512 0.3%

2016 8,394 -1.4%

2017 8,138 -3%

2018 8,053 -1%

2019 8,092 0.5%




Diagram III.1.1

Population Alliance city




Box Butte County Population Migration Trends

The Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) collects data on drivers who move to Nebraska

and exchange licenses from other states as well as those surrendering Nebraska driver’s licenses when

relocating to a different state. The NDOT data do not represent a precise count of migration, as they

show only the net change in the number of driver’s licenses, but the data indicate the general

direction of population movement.

Shown in Table III.1.2, the most recent first half of

2020 data saw a total net out-migration of 98 persons,

with a total of 78 persons entering Box Butte County

and 176 persons leaving Box Butte County.

Diagram III.1.2 shows the in- and out-migration in Box

Butte County between 2002 and 2020 as shaded areas,

with net migration depicted as a white line. The

maximum net migration occurred in 2011 with 83

people entering and the lowest net-migration occurred

in 2019 with 89 people leaving Box Butte County.

Table III.1.2 Net In-migration by Year

Box Butte County Nebraska DOT Data

Year In-

Migration Out-

Migration Net

Migration

2002 203 249 -46 2003 172 228 -56 2004 215 226 -11 2005 198 198 0 2006 248 244 4 2007 270 236 34 2008 158 167 -9 2009 208 200 8 2010 218 178 40 2011 253 170 83 2012 251 225 26 2013 233 206 27 2014 240 225 15 2015 235 223 12 2016 181 220 -39 2017 178 243 -65 2018 188 203 -15 2019 173 262 -89 2020 (p) 78 176 -98




Diagram III.1.2 Migration Trends

Box Butte County Nebraska DOT Data: 2002 – 2020 (p)

The NDOT data also collects gender and age information. Table III.1.3 shows in- and out- migration

by gender. In the most recent first half of 2020 data, 52 percent of net migrants were male and the

remaining 48 percent were female.

Table III.1.3 Net In-migration by Gender


Gender 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-

First Half

In

Male 85 101 105 108 113 105 116 96 90 78 74 36

Female 123 117 148 143 120 135 119 85 88 110 99 42

Total 208 218 253 251 233 240 235 181 178 188 173 78

Out

Male 94 83 77 106 94 102 95 95 120 102 119 87

Female 106 95 93 119 112 123 128 125 123 101 143 89

Total 200 178 170 225 206 225 223 220 243 203 262 176

Net

Male -9 18 28 2 19 3 21 1 -30 -24 -45 -51

Female 17 22 55 24 8 12 -9 -40 -35 9 -44 -47

Total 8 40 83 26 27 15 12 -39 -65 -15 -89 -98




Table III.1.4 shows net migration for Box Butte County by age range. In the first half of 2020, the 45

to 54 cohort saw 5 persons leaving Box Butte County, while the 25 to 34 cohort saw 26 persons

leaving Box Butte County.

Table III.1.4 Migration by Age Range


Age Range

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 –

First Half

In

14-24 53 51 60 61 54 57 57 29 27 31 33 8

25-34 58 53 83 86 69 79 76 60 49 71 48 28

35-44 43 53 48 50 48 52 35 36 46 37 36 9

45-54 28 28 36 33 32 16 33 15 26 23 25 10

55-64 17 19 15 16 16 15 21 32 17 17 10 14

65 + 9 14 11 5 14 21 13 9 13 9 21 9

Total 208 218 253 251 233 240 235 181 178 188 173 78

Out

14-24 55 51 47 53 54 58 63 42 58 45 50 29

25-34 57 39 44 68 56 69 55 80 73 61 75 54

35-44 32 38 32 34 30 32 36 36 37 35 49 30

45-54 20 20 19 27 21 26 31 23 20 16 33 15

55-64 28 26 21 33 28 24 26 25 35 25 31 24

65 + 8 4 7 10 17 16 12 14 20 21 24 24

Total 200 178 170 225 206 225 223 220 243 203 262 176

Net

14-24 -2 0 13 8 0 -1 -6 -13 -31 -14 -17 -21

25-34 1 14 39 18 13 10 21 -20 -24 10 -27 -26

35-44 11 15 16 16 18 20 -1 0 9 2 -13 -21

45-54 8 8 17 6 11 -10 2 -8 6 7 -8 -5

55-64 -11 -7 -6 -17 -12 -9 -5 7 -18 -8 -21 -10

65 + 1 10 4 -5 -3 5 1 -5 -7 -12 -3 -15

Total 8 40 83 26 27 15 12 -39 -65 -15 -89 -98




Table III.1.5 shows migration data for Box Butte County between 2012 and 2018. This data comes

from the IRS, which tracks address changes between filing years. As a result, this dataset might

underrepresent low-income people who are less likely to file taxes. This dataset also excludes tax

returns filed after late September. Taxpayers who file after late September are likely to have complex

returns that report high income, which means this dataset will also underreport the very wealthy.

Box Butte County saw a net out migration of -3 persons in 2018, compared to a net out migration of

-119 persons in 2017.

Table III.1.5 IRS Migration Trends

Box Butte County IRS Data

Year In-Migration Out-Migration Net Migration

2012 nan nan nan 2013 nan nan nan 2014 nan nan nan 2015 nan nan nan 2016 65 172 -107 2017 85 204 -119 2018 69 72 -3




Census Demographic Data

Census data is presented in one of four Summary Files (SF). In the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial

censuses, the Census Bureau released the full SF1 100 percent count data1, along with additional

tabulations including the one-in-six SF3 sample. The Census Bureau did not collect additional sample

data such as the SF3 in the 2010 decennial census, so many important housing and income concepts

are not available in the 2010 Census.

To study these important housing and income concepts, the Census Bureau distributes the American

Community Survey (ACS) every year to a sample of the population, then quantifies the results as one-

, three- and five-year averages. The one-year sample only includes responses from the year the survey

was implemented, while the five-year sample includes responses over a five-year period. The five-

year estimates are more robust than the one- or three-year samples because they include more

responses and can be tabulated down to the Census tract level.

The Census Bureau collects race data according to U.S. Office of Management and Budget guidelines,

and these data are based on self-identification. Ancestry refers to one’s ethnic origin or descent,

"roots," or heritage, or the place of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before

their arrival in the United States. Ethnic identities may or may not represent geographic areas. People

may choose to report more than one race group and people of any race may be of any ethnic origin.

Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality, lineage, or country of birth of the person

or the person’s parents or ancestors before arriving in the United States. People who identify as

Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be any race.

.




Population Characteristics

The Alliance city population by race and ethnicity is shown in Table III.1.6. The white population

represented 90.9 percent of the population in 2019, compared with black populations accounting

for 1.8 percent of the population in 2019. Hispanic households represented 15.1 percent of the

population in 2019.

Table III.1.6 Population by Race and Ethnicity

Alliance city 2010 Census & 2019 Five-Year ACS

Race 2010 Census 2019 Five-Year ACS

Population % of Total Population % of Total

White 7,429 87.5% 7,489 90.9%

Black 45 0.5% 149 1.8%

American Indian 390 4.6% 234 2.8%

Asian 27 0.3% 110 1.3%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 2 0% 0 0%

Other 355 4.2% 33 0.4%

Two or More Races 243 2.9% 220 2.7%

Total 8,491 100.0% 8,235 100.0%

Non-Hispanic 7,443 87.7% 6,990 84.9%

Hispanic 1,048 12.3% 1,245 15.1%

The change in race and ethnicity between 2010 and 2019 is shown in Table III.1.7. During this time,

the total non-Hispanic population was 6,990 persons in 2019, while the Hispanic population was

1,245.

Table III.1.7 Population by Race and Ethnicity

Alliance city 2010 Census & 2019 Five-Year ACS

Race 2010 Census 2019 Five-Year ACS

Population % of Total Population % of Total

Non-Hispanic

White 6,905 92.8% 6,375 91.2%

Black 42 0.6% 149 2.1%

American Indian 317 4.3% 205 2.9%

Asian 27 0.4% 110 1.6%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1 0% 0 0%

Other 1 0% 0 0%

Two or More Races 150 2% 151 2.2%

Total Non-Hispanic 7,443 100.0% 6,990 100.0%

Hispanic

White 524 50% 1,114 89.5%

Black 3 0.3% 0 0%

American Indian 73 7% 29 2.3%

Asian 0 0% 0 0%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1 0.1% 0 0%

Other 354 33.8% 33 2.7%

Two or More Races 93 8.9% 69 5.5%

Total Hispanic 1,048 100.0 1,245 100.0%

Total Population 8,491 100.0% 8,235 100.0%




Cohorts

Table III.1.8 shows the population distribution in Alliance city by age. In 2010, children under the

age of 5 accounted for 7.1 percent of the total population, which compared to 6.4 percent in 2019.

Table III.1.8 Population Distribution by Age

Alliance city 2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Age 2010 Census 2019 Five-Year ACS

Number of Persons Percent Number of Persons Percent

Under 5 606 7.1 523 6.4

5 to 19 1,798 21.2 1,862 22.6

20 to 24 371 4.4 429 5.2

25 to 34 998 11.8 916 11.1

35 to 54 2,262 26.6 1,992 24.2

55 to 64 1,190 14 1,222 14.8

65 or Older 1,266 14.9 1,291 15.7

Total 8,491 100% 8,235 100%

Table III.1.9 shows the population in Alliance city by age and gender. In 2010, there were 998 people

aged 25 to 34, made up of 485 men, and 513 women. In comparison, in 2019, there were 916

people in the 25 to 34 age cohort, with 430 men and 486 women.

Table III.1.9 Population by Age and Gender

Alliance city 2010 Census & 2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Age 2010 Census 2019 Five Year ACs

Male Female Total Percent Male Female Total Percent

Under 5 298 308 606 7.1% 204 319 523 6.4%

5 to 19 911 887 1,798 21.2% 1,126 736 1,862 22.6%

20 to 24 183 188 371 4.4% 208 221 429 5.2%

25 to 34 485 513 998 11.8% 430 486 916 11.1%

35 to 54 1,111 1,151 2,262 26.6% 966 1,026 1,992 24.2%

55 to 64 624 566 1,190 14% 678 544 1,222 14.8%

65 and Older 497 769 1,266 14.9% 544 747 1,291 15.7%

Total 4,109 4,382 8,491 100% 4,156 4,079 8,235 100%




Diagram III.1.3 Population Distribution by Age

Alliance city 2010 Census and 2019 Five-Year ACS Data




Diagram III.1.4 Population Distribution by Age and Gender

Alliance city 2019 Five-Year ACS




Group Quarters Population

The group quarters population includes the institutionalized population, who live in correctional

institutions, juvenile facilities, nursing homes, and other institutions, and the non-institutionalized

population, who live in college dormitories, military quarters, and other group living situations. As

seen in Table III.1.10, between 2000 and 2010, the institutionalized population changed -14.1

percent in Alliance city, from 149 people in 2000 to 128 in 2010. The non-institutionalized

population changed -9.1 percent, from 33 in 2000 to 30 in 2010.

Table III.1.10 Group Quarters Population

Alliance city 2000 & 2010 Census SF1 Data

Group Quarters Type 2000 Census 2010 Census % Change

00–10 Population % of Total Population % of Total

Institutionalized

Correctional Institutions 14 9.4% 11 8.6% -21.4%

Juvenile Facilities . . 0 0% .

Nursing Homes 134 89.9% 117 91.4% -12.7%

Other Institutions 1 0.7% 0 0% -100%

Total 149 100.0% 128 100.0% -14.1%

Noninstitutionalized

College Dormitories 0 0% 0 0% 0%

Military Quarters 0 0% 0 0% 0%

Other Noninstitutionalized 33 100% 30 100% -9.1%

Total 33 100.0% 30 100.0% -9.1%

Group Quarters Population 182 100.0% 158 100.0% -13.2%




Foreign-born Populations

The number of foreign-born persons are shown in Table III.1.11. An estimated 2.1 percent of the

population was born in Mexico, some 1.3 percent were born in Bahamas, and another 0.9 percent

were born in China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Table III.1.11 Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population


Number County Number of Persons

Percent of Total Population

#1 country of origin Mexico 171 2.1%

#2 country of origin Bahamas 104 1.3%

#3 country of origin China, excluding Hong

Kong and Taiwan 72 0.9%

#4 country of origin Colombia 32 0.4%

#5 country of origin India 28 0.3%

#6 country of origin Germany 18 0.2%

#7 country of origin Ireland 13 0.2%

#8 country of origin Cuba 11 0.1%

#9 country of origin Afghanistan 0 0%

#10 country of origin Africa, n.e.c. 0 0%

The language spoken at home for those with Limited English Proficiency are shown in Table III.1.12.

An estimated 2.7 percent of the population speaks Spanish at home, followed by 0.9 percent speaking

Chinese.

Table III.1.12 Limited English Proficiency and Language Spoken at Home


Number County Number of Persons

Percent of Total Population

#1 LEP Language Spanish 206 2.7%

#2 LEP Language Chinese 72 0.9%

#3 LEP Language Arabic 0 0%

#4 LEP Language French, Haitian, or

Cajun 0 0%

#5 LEP Language German or other West Germanic languages

0 0%

#6 LEP Language Korean 0 0%

#7 LEP Language Other Asian and Pacific

Island languages 0 0%

#8 LEP Language Other Indo-European

languages 0 0%

#9 LEP Language Other and unspecified

languages 0 0%

#10 LEP Language Russian, Polish, or other

Slavic languages 0 0%




Disability

Disability by age, as estimated by the 2019 ACS, is shown in Table III.1.13, below. The disability rate

for females was 11.9 percent, compared to 11.8 percent for males. The disability rate grew

precipitously higher with age, with 47 percent of those over 75 experiencing a disability.

Table III.1.13 Disability by Age


Age Male Female Total

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Under 5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

5 to 17 84 8.2% 0 0% 84 4.9%

18 to 34 114 15.6% 13 1.7% 127 8.5%

35 to 64 156 9.6% 231 14.9% 387 12.2%

65 to 74 71 21.1% 60 16.3% 131 18.6%

75 or Older 63 32.1% 169 56.7% 232 47%

Total 488 11.8% 473 11.9% 961 11.9%

The number of disabilities by type, as estimated by the 2019 ACS, is shown in Table III.1.14. Some

7.1 percent have an ambulatory disability, 6.2 have an independent living disability, and 3.3 percent

have a self-care disability.

Table III.1.14 Total Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older


Disability Type Population with

Disability Percent with

Disability

Hearing disability 255 3.1%

Vision disability 216 2.7%

Cognitive disability 338 4.5%

Ambulatory disability 539 7.1%

Self-Care disability 253 3.3%

Independent living disability 365 6.2%




Education and Employment

Education and employment data from the Alliance city 2019 Five-Year ACS is presented in Table

III.1.15, Table III.1.16, and Table III.1.17. In 2019, 4,100 people were in the labor force, including

3,857 employed and 243 unemployed people. The unemployment rate for Alliance city was

estimated at 5.9 percent in 2019.

Table III.1.15 Employment, Labor Force

and Unemployment Alliance city

2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Employment Status 2019 Five-Year ACS

Employed 3,857

Unemployed 243

Labor Force 4,100

Unemployment Rate 5.9%

Table III.1.16 and Table III.1.17 show educational attainment in Alliance city. In 2019, 87.8 percent

of households had a high school education or greater, including 34.1 percent with a high school

diploma or equivalent, 38.5 percent with some college, 11.2 percent with a Bachelor’s Degree, and

4 percent with a graduate or professional degree.

Table III.1.16 High School or Greater Education


Education Level Households

High School or Greater 5,269

Total Households 3,543

Percent High School or Above 87.8%

Table III.1.17 Educational Attainment


Education Level 2019 Five-Year ACS Percent

Less Than High School 733 12.2%

High School or Equivalent 2,044 34.1%

Some College or Associates Degree 2,311 38.5%

Bachelor’s Degree 673 11.2%

Graduate or Professional Degree 241 4%

Total Population Above 18 years 6,002 100.0%




Commuting Patterns

Table III.1.18 shows the place of work by county of residence. In 2010 96.2 percent of residents

worked within the county they reside with 1.7 percent working outside their home county but still

within the state. This compares to 97.7 percent of residents in 2019 who worked within the county

in which they resided and 2 percent of residents worked outside their home county but still within

the state.

Table III.1.18 Place of Work

Alliance city 2010 and 2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Place of work 2010 Five-Year ACS % of Total 2019 Five-Year ACS % of Total

Worked in county of residence 4,024 96.2% 3,670 97.7%

Worked outside county of residence 71 1.7% 77 2%

Worked outside state of residence 88 2.1% 11 0.3%

Total 4,183 100.0% 3,758 100.0%

Table III.1.19 shows the aggregate travel time to work based on place of work and residence. In

Alliance city the total aggregate travel time was 0 minutes, with residents working in their home

county spending a total of 0 minutes traveling.

Table III.1.19 Aggregate Travel Time to Work (in Minutes)

Alliance city 2010 & 2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Place of Work 2010 Five-Year ACS % of Total 2019 Five-Year ACS % of Total

Worked in county of residence 35,505 84.1% 0 0%

Worked outside county of residence 5,620 13.3% 0 0%

Worked outside State of residence 1,080 2.6% 0 0%

Aggregate travel time to work (in minutes):

42,205 100.0% 0 100.0%

Table III.1.20 shows the average travel time to work based on place of work and residence. In 2019

the overall aggregate travel time was 42,205 minutes. Residents working within their home county

spent an average of 0 minutes commuting to work, with those working outside their county of

residence spending an average of 0 minutes on their commute.




Table III.1.20 Average Travel Time to Work (in Minutes)


Place of Work 2010 Five-Year ACS 2019 Five-Year ACS

Worked in county of residence 8.8 0

Worked outside county of residence 79.2 0

Worked outside State of residence 12.3 0

Average travel time to work (in minutes): 10.1 0

Table III.1.21 shows the means of transportation to work. In 2019, 83.9 percent of commuters drove

alone in a car, truck, or van. Only 12.1 percent carpooled, with an additional 0 percent taking public

transportation. Also, there were 79 persons or 2.1 percent who worked from home.

Table III.1.21 Means of Transportation to Work


Means 2010 Five-Year

ACS % of Total

2019 Five-Year ACS

% of Total

Car, truck, or van: Drove alone 3,497 83.6% 3,154 83.9%

Car, truck, or van: Carpooled: 304 7.3% 454 12.1%

Public transportation (excluding taxicab): 28 0.7% 0 0%

Taxicab 0 0% 0 0%

Motorcycle 23 0.5% 9 0.2%

Bicycle 35 0.8% 13 0.3%

Walked 251 6% 33 0.9%

Other means 0 0% 16 0.4%

Worked at home 45 1.1% 79 2.1%

Total 4,183 100.0% 3,758 100.0%




Table III.1.22 shows the breakdown of the means of transportation by tenure. In 2019, 62 percent of

commuters owned their home and commuted alone by car, which compares to 61.8 percent in 2010.

There were also 832 renters who drove alone in 2019 and accounted for 22.2 percent of the total

commuter population. Commuters who owned their own home and took public transportation

represented 0 percent of the population, which compares to 0 renters, or 0 percent taking public

transportation.

Table III.1.22 Means Of Transportation To Work By Tenure


Tenure 2010 Five-Year

ACS % of Total

2019 Five-Year ACS

% of Total

Car, truck, or van - drove alone:

Owner 2,587 61.8% 2,321 62% Renter 910 21.8% 832 22.2%

Car, truck, or van - carpooled:

Owner 130 3.1% 291 7.8%

Renter 174 4.2% 163 4.4%

Public transportation (excluding taxicab):

Owner 0 0% 0 0% Renter 28 0.7% 0 0%

Walked:

Owner 103 2.5% 20 0.5%

Renter 148 3.5% 8 0.2%

Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means:

Owner 58 1.4% 28 0.7%

Renter 0 0% 0 0%

Worked at home:

Owner 45 1.1% 79 2.1% Renter 0 0% 0 0%

Total: 4,183 100.0% 3,742 100.0%




ECONOMICS

Labor Force

Table III.1.23 shows the labor force statistics for Box Butte County from 1990 to 2019. Over the

entire series the lowest unemployment rate occurred in 2018 with a rate of 2.9 percent while the

highest level of unemployment occurred during 2009 at 6.6 percent. This compared to a statewide

low of 2.3 in 1990 and a statewide high of 4.6 percent in 2009. Over the last year, the unemployment

rate in Box Butte County increased from 2.9 percent in 2018 to 3.2 percent in 2019, which compared

to a statewide increase to 3 percent.

Table III.1.23 Labor Force Statistics

Box Butte County 1990 - 2019 BLS Data

Year

Box Butte County Statewide

Unemployment Rate Unemployment Employment Labor Force Unemployment

Rate

1990 192 6,139 6,331 3% 2.3%

1991 234 5,965 6,199 3.8% 2.7%

1992 209 6,000 6,209 3.4% 2.9%

1993 205 6,051 6,256 3.3% 2.8%

1994 238 6,005 6,243 3.8% 2.6%

1995 285 6,050 6,335 4.5% 2.6%

1996 343 5,843 6,186 5.5% 2.7%

1997 321 6,088 6,409 5% 2.5%

1998 319 6,340 6,659 4.8% 2.6%

1999 315 6,306 6,621 4.8% 2.8%

2000 252 6,170 6,422 3.9% 2.8%

2001 254 5,559 5,813 4.4% 3.1%

2002 269 5,433 5,702 4.7% 3.6%

2003 267 5,392 5,659 4.7% 3.9%

2004 224 5,362 5,586 4% 3.9%

2005 222 5,392 5,614 4% 3.8%

2006 169 5,358 5,527 3.1% 3.1%

2007 180 5,433 5,613 3.2% 3%

2008 210 5,420 5,630 3.7% 3.3%

2009 372 5,269 5,641 6.6% 4.6%

2010 291 5,561 5,852 5% 4.6%

2011 253 5,728 5,981 4.2% 4.4%

2012 240 5,737 5,977 4% 4%

2013 231 5,757 5,988 3.9% 3.8%

2014 179 5,557 5,736 3.1% 3.3%

2015 170 5,487 5,657 3% 3%

2016 203 5,435 5,638 3.6% 3.1%

2017 177 5,240 5,417 3.3% 2.9%

2018 156 5,245 5,401 2.9% 2.9%

2019 172 5,247 5,419 3.2% 3%




Diagram III.1.5 shows the employment and labor force for Box Butte County. The difference between

the two lines represents the number of unemployed persons. In the most recent year, employment

stood at 5,247 persons, with the labor force reaching 5,419, indicating there were a total of 172

unemployed persons.

Diagram III.1.5

Employment and Labor Force Box Butte County

1990 – 2019 BLS Data




Unemployment

Diagram III.1.6 shows the unemployment rate for both the State and Box Butte County. During the

1990s the average rate for Box Butte County was 4.2, which compared to 2.6 statewide. Between

2000 and 2010 the Box Butte County unemployment rate had an average of 4.2, which compared to

3.5 statewide. Since 2010 the average unemployment rate in Box Butte County was 3.6. Over the

course of the entire period Box Butte County had an average unemployment rate higher than the

state, 4 percent for Box Butte County, versus 3.2 statewide.

Diagram III.1.6

Annual Unemployment Rate Box Butte County

1990 – 2019 BLS Data




Employment

Table III.1.24 shows employment and median earnings by industry for Alliance city from the 2019

Five-Year ACS. In 2019 the largest industry by number of people employed in Alliance city was

Transport, which employed 640 people and paid a median salary of 73,103 dollars. The highest

paying industry in Alliance city was also the Transport industry, which paid a median salary of 73,103

dollars in 2019.

Table III.1.24 City Level Employment by Industry

Alliance city 2018 Five Year ACS Data

Industry Total

Employment Percent of

Employment Median

Earnings

Admin 41 2% $36,553

Arts 29 1% $32,788

Construction 263 10% $43,030

Education 138 5% $35,405

Farming 129 5% $67,837

Finance 93 3% $32,750

Food 191 7% $16,250

Health Care 307 11% $55,438

Info 0 0% $0

Management 0 0% $0

Manufacturing 330 12% $55,286

Mining 9 0% $0

Other 86 3% $26,161

Prof Service 71 3% $37,321

Government 95 4% $36,295

Real Estate 15 0% $0

Retail 213 8% $40,287

Transport 640 23% $73,103

Utilities 38 1% $64,688

Wholesale 45 2% $53,185




Diagram III.1.7 displays employment and earnings data for 2019 in Alliance city. Only industries that

employed more than 0.0 percent of people and had accurate median earnings data are included in

Diagram III.1.7.

Diagram III.1.7

Employment and Median Earnings by Industry Alliance city





Box Butte County Earnings

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (B.E.A.) produces regional economic accounts which provide a

consistent framework for analyzing and comparing individual state and local area economies.

Diagram III.1.8 shows real average earnings per job for Box Butte County from 1990 to 2019. Over

this period the average earnings per job for Box Butte County was 53,469 dollars, which was higher

than the statewide average of 49,686 dollars over the same period.

Diagram III.1.8 Real Average Earnings Per Job

Box Butte County BEA Data 1990 - 2019




Diagram III.1.9 shows real per capita income for Box Butte County from 1990 to 2019, which is

calculated by dividing total personal income from all sources by population. Per capita income is a

broader measure of wealth than real average earnings per job, which only captures the working

population. Over this period the real per capita income for Box Butte County was 39,544 dollars,

which was lower than the statewide average of 44,217 dollars over the same period.

Diagram III.1.9

Real Per Capita Income Box Butte County

BEA Data 1990 - 2019




Nebraska Department of Revenue: Box Butte County

According to the Nebraska Department of Revenue (DOR), returns from taxpayers with adjusted gross

incomes (AGIs) of less than 10,000 dollars decreased by 25 percent percent between 2010 and 2019.

Returns from taxpayers with AGIs of 35,001 dollars to 50,000 dollars decreased by 2 percent percent

over the same period. By 2019 there were 912 returns for AGIs of over 100,000 dollars. Table III.1.25

presents AGI distribution for the years 2000 through 2019.

Table III.1.25 Income Tax Returns by Adjusted Gross Income

Box Butte County 2000–2019 DOR Data

Year Less than $10,000

$10,001–$15,000

$15,001–$25,000

$25,001–$35,000

$35,001–$50,000

$50,001–$75,000

$75,001–$100,000

$100,001–$250,000

More than $250,000

Total2

2000 1,630 386 793 582 812 1,018 360 194 21 5,796

2001 1,647 336 762 567 764 987 411 186 20 5,680

2002 1,620 401 785 536 786 947 408 152 15 5,650

2003 1,519 374 712 605 789 921 408 179 16 5,523

2004 1,453 408 698 575 675 905 512 258 20 5,504

2005 1,198 333 634 495 592 879 549 297 22 4,999

2006 1,210 398 762 495 687 972 582 386 34 5,526

2007 1,108 409 660 460 678 934 667 440 32 5,388

2008 1,114 403 671 521 670 998 629 489 39 5,534

2009 1,060 411 664 515 652 955 615 423 31 5,326

2010 1,027 398 649 467 641 941 655 478 36 5,292

2011 996 401 637 490 618 925 665 599 43 5,374

2012 929 354 648 500 592 952 691 628 53 5,347

2013 907 390 617 525 555 850 727 691 49 5,311

2014 859 353 646 486 559 826 739 809 47 5,324

2015 827 379 623 517 565 841 746 755 41 5,294

2016 845 345 604 515 609 853 706 601 45 5,123

2017 848 356 588 507 593 799 666 745 40 5,142

2018 773 355 585 515 635 738 658 876 46 5,181

2019 771 349 584 517 628 806 642 867 45 5,209

2 Income levels with fewer than 10 returns were not disclosed, but are included in the totals. As a result, income levels may not sum to

total.




Diagram III.1.10

Tax Returns by Income Bracket Box Butte County

1991 – 2019 DOR Data




Poverty

Poverty is the condition of having insufficient resources or income.

In its extreme form, poverty is a lack of basic human needs, such

as adequate and healthy food, clothing, housing, water, and health

services. According to the Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and

Poverty Estimates Program, the number of individuals in poverty

decreased from 1,455 in 2010 to 1,096 in 2019, with the poverty

rate reaching 10.3 percent in 2019. This compared to a state

poverty rate of 9.9 percent and a national rate of 12.3 percent in

2019. Table III.1.26 presents poverty data for Box Butte County.

The rate of poverty for Alliance city is shown in Table III.1.27. In

2019, the poverty rate was 15.2 percent meaning there were an

estimated 1,229 people living in poverty, compared to 1,423

percent living in poverty in 2010. In 2019, some 26.8 percent of

those in poverty were under age 6 and 8.8 percent were 65 or

older.

Table III.1.27 Poverty by Age


Age 2010 Five-Year ACS 2019 Five-Year ACS

Persons in Poverty

% of Total Persons in

Poverty % of Total

Under 6 309 41.9% 165 26.8%

6 to 17 397 26.8% 172 10.8%

18 to 64 506 10.2% 787 16.9%

65 or Older 211 17.4% 105 8.8%

Total 1,423 100.0% 1,229 100.0%

Poverty Rate 16.9% . 15.2% .

Table III.1.26 Persons in Poverty

Box Butte County 2000–2019 SAIPE Estimates

Year Persons in

Poverty Poverty

Rate

2000 1,204 10.3% 2001 1,240 10.6% 2002 1,288 11.1% 2003 1,288 11.4% 2004 1,288 11.4% 2005 1,374 12.4% 2006 1,275 11.7% 2007 1,393 12.9% 2008 1,153 10.7% 2009 1,237 11.6% 2010 1,455 13.1% 2011 1,886 16.9% 2012 1,520 13.7% 2013 1,428 12.9% 2014 1,274 11.4% 2015 1,295 11.6% 2016 1,269 11.5% 2017 1,241 11.6% 2018 1,454 13.7% 2019 1,096 10.3%




Diagram III.1.11 Poverty Rate Box Butte County

U.S. Census Small Area Income Poverty Estimates




Household Income

Table III.1.28 shows the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI/MFI) for a family of four for Box

Butte County. In 2019 the MFI was 75,200 dollars, which compared to 78,100 dollars for the State

of Nebraska.

Table III.1.28 Median Family Income

Box Butte County 2000–2019 HUD MFI

Year MFI State of Nebraska

MFI

2000 46,900 50,400 2001 50,500 53,400 2002 51,900 55,100 2003 54,700 55,400 2004 54,900 56,300 2005 55,700 57,400 2006 57,600 59,400 2007 56,500 59,400 2008 58,200 59,000 2009 60,200 62,000 2010 60,800 62,600 2011 57,400 63,500 2012 58,200 64,400 2013 56,800 64,600 2014 58,300 66,000 2015 56,600 66,800 2016 60,100 66,500 2017 61,100 68,200 2018 67,900 74,900 2019 75,200 78,100




HOUSING

Housing Production

The Census Bureau reports building permit authorizations and “per unit” valuation of building

permits by county annually. Single-family construction usually represents most residential

development in the county. Single-family building permit authorizations in Alliance city remained

unchanged from 2 authorizations in 2018 to 2 in 2019.

The real value of single-family building permits increased from 178,063 dollars in 2018 to 305,000

dollars in 2019 This compares to a decrease in permit value statewide, with values dropping by 5,137

dollars from 223,902 dollars in 2018 to 218,765 dollars in 2019. Additional details are given in Table

III.1.29 and presented in Diagram III.1.12. Diagram III.1.13 shows total permits by unit type from

1980 to 2019.




Table III.1.29

Building Permits and Valuation Alliance city

Census Bureau Data, 1980–2019

Year

Authorized Construction in Permit Issuing Areas Per Unit Valuation,

(Real 2019$)

Single- Family

Duplex Units

Tri- and Four-Plex

Multi-Family Units

Total Units

Single-Family Units

Multi-Family Units

1980 60 20 0 122 202 93,301 61,116

1981 44 0 0 0 44 81,129 0 1982 5 0 0 0 5 96,501 0 1983 12 0 0 0 12 96,739 0 1984 5 0 0 0 5 139,337 0 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1986 5 0 0 0 5 91,221 0 1987 3 0 0 0 3 112,928 0 1988 1 0 0 0 1 74,201 0 1989 2 0 0 0 2 103,606 0 1990 1 0 0 0 1 112,935 0 1991 1 0 0 0 1 102,407 0 1992 2 0 0 0 2 98,465 0 1993 7 0 0 0 7 186,780 0 1994 8 16 3 0 27 177,294 0 1995 9 0 0 0 9 154,193 0 1996 9 0 0 0 9 160,883 0 1997 17 0 0 0 17 122,164 0 1998 15 0 0 0 15 149,384 0 1999 2 0 0 0 2 169,192 0 2000 2 0 0 0 2 110,448 0 2001 9 0 0 0 9 141,008 0 2002 5 0 0 13 18 135,284 63,978 2003 4 0 0 0 4 158,615 0 2004 1 0 0 0 1 86,138 0 2005 2 0 0 0 2 226,835 0 2006 3 2 0 0 5 138,947 0 2007 4 0 0 24 28 297,557 80,985 2008 25 0 0 0 25 172,545 0 2009 2 0 0 0 2 230,660 0 2010 18 0 0 0 18 142,883 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 3 0 0 0 3 367,777 0 2013 2 0 0 0 2 159,545 0 2014 1 0 0 0 1 813,096 0 2015 6 0 0 0 6 195,994 0 2016 3 0 0 0 3 329,192 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 2 0 0 0 2 178,063 0 2019 2 0 0 0 2 305,000 0




Diagram III.1.12

Single-Family Permits Alliance city

Census Bureau Data, 1980–2019

Diagram III.1.13 Total Permits by Unit Type

Alliance city Census Bureau Data, 1980–2019




Housing Characteristics

Households by type and tenure are shown in Table III.1.30. Family households represented 60.7

percent of households, while non-family households accounted for 39.3 percent. These changed

from 64 and 36 percent, respectively.

Table III.1.30

Household Type by Tenure Alliance city

2010 Census SF1 & 2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Household Type 2010 Census 2019 Five-Year ACS

Households % of Total Households % of Total

Family Households 2,276 64% 2,151 60.7%

Married-Couple Family 1,790 78.6% 1,590 73.9%

Owner-Occupied 1,498 83.7% 1,401 88.1%

Renter-Occupied 292 16.3% 189 11.9%

Other Family 486 21.4% 561 22.6%

Male Householder, No Spouse Present 137 28.2% 195 24.4%

Owner-Occupied 77 56.2% 95 48.7%


Female Householder, No Spouse Present 349 71.8% 366 62.2%

Owner-Occupied 152 43.6% 130 35.5%


Non-Family Households 1,283 36% 1,392 39.3%

Owner-Occupied 658 51.3% 635 45.6%


Total 3,559 100.0% 3,543 100.0%

Table III.1.31, below, shows housing units by type in 2010 and 2019. In 2010, there were 4,079

housing units, compared with 4,044 in 2019. Single-family units accounted for 74 percent of units

in 2019, compared to 68.5 in 2010. Apartment units accounted for 14.8 percent in 2019, compared

to 10.7 percent in 2010.

Table III.1.31 Housing Units by Type


Unit Type 2010 Five-Year ACS 2019 Five-Year ACS

Units % of Total Units % of Total

Single-Family 2,796 68.5% 2,991 74%

Duplex 210 5.1% 139 3.4%

Tri- or Four-Plex 213 5.2% 176 4.4%

Apartment 437 10.7% 597 14.8%

Mobile Home 423 10.4% 141 3.5%

Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 0 0% 0 0%

Total 4,079 100.0% 4,044 100.0%




Table III.1.32 shows housing units by tenure from 2010 to 2019. By 2019, there were 4,044 housing

units. An estimated 63.8 percent were owner-occupied, and 12.4 percent were vacant.

Table III.1.32 Housing Units by Tenure


Tenure 2010 Census 2019 Five-Year ACS


Occupied Housing Units 3,559 87.3% 3,543 87.6%

Owner-Occupied 2,385 67% 2,261 63.8%

Renter-Occupied 1,174 33% 1,282 36.2%

Vacant Housing Units 516 12.7% 501 12.4%

Total Housing Units 4,075 100.0% 4,044 100.0%

Households by income for the 2010 and 2019 Five-Year ACS are shown in Table III.1.33. Households

earning more than 100,000 dollars per year represented 16.8 percent of households in 2019,

compared to 13.4 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, households earning less than 15,000 dollars

accounted for 10.6 percent of households in 2019, compared to 17.1 percent in 2000.

Table III.1.33 Households by Income


Income 2010 Five-Year ACS 2019 Five-Year ACS


Less than $15,000 623 17.1% 376 10.6%

$15,000 to $19,999 155 4.3% 238 6.7%

$20,000 to $24,999 353 9.7% 50 1.4%

$25,000 to $34,999 308 8.5% 525 14.8%

$35,000 to $49,999 613 16.9% 615 17.4%

$50,000 to $74,999 702 19.3% 543 15.3%

$75,000 to $99,999 391 10.8% 601 17%

$100,000 or More 488 13.4% 595 16.8%

Total 3,633 100.0% 3,543 100.0%




Table III.1.34 shows households by year home built for the 2010 and 2019 Five-Year ACS Data.

Housing units built between 2000 and 2009, account for 1.8 percent of households in 2010 and 3.3

percent of households in 2019. Housing units built in 1939 or earlier represented 26.8 percent of

households in 2019 and 25.5 percent of households in 2010.

Table III.1.34 Households by Year Home Built


Year Built 2010 Five-Year ACS 2019 Five-Year ACS


1939 or Earlier 926 25.5% 950 26.8%

1940 to 1949 352 9.7% 294 8.3%

1950 to 1959 449 12.4% 341 9.6%

1960 to 1969 391 10.8% 187 5.3%

1970 to 1979 905 24.9% 1,015 28.6%

1980 to 1989 316 8.7% 401 11.3%

1990 to 1999 229 6.3% 176 5%

2000 to 2009 65 1.8% 116 3.3%

2010 or Later . . 63 1.8%

Total 3,633 100.0% 3,543 100.0%

The distribution of unit types by race are shown in Table III.1.35. An estimated 76.5 percent of white

households occupy single-family homes, compared to 30 percent of black households. Some 11.8

percent of white households occupied apartments, compared to 70 percent of black households. An

estimated 100 percent of Asian, and 100 percent of American Indian households occupy single-

family homes.




Table III.1.35 Distribution of Units in Structure by Race


Unit Type White Black American

Indian Asian

Native Hawaiian/Pacifi

c Islanders Other

Two or More Races

Single-Family 76.5% 30% 100% 100% 0% 0% 47.3%

Duplex 4.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Tri- or Four-Plex

3.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Apartment 11.8% 70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 52.7%

Mobile Home 4.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Boat, RV, Van, Etc.

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The disposition of vacant units between 2010 and 2019 are shown in Table III.1.36. An estimated

53.7 percent of vacant units were for rent in 2010. In addition, some 10.5 percent of vacant units

were for sale. “Other” vacant units represented 27.7 percent of vacant units in 2010. “Other” vacant

units are not for sale or rent, or otherwise available to the marketplace. These units may be

problematic if concentrated in certain areas and may create a “blighting” effect.

By 2019, for rent units accounted for 18.6 percent of vacant units, while for sale units accounted for

2.6 percent. “Other” vacant units accounted for 46.1 percent of vacant units, representing a total of

231 “other” vacant units.

Table III.1.36 Disposition of Vacant Housing Units


Disposition 2010 Census 2019 Five-Year ACS


For Rent 277 53.7% 93 18.6%

For Sale 54 10.5% 13 2.6%

Rented Not Occupied 4 0.8% 27 5.4%

Sold Not Occupied 9 1.7% 0 0%

For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 26 5% 137 27.3%

For Migrant Workers 3 0.6% 0 0%

Other Vacant 143 27.7% 231 46.1%

Total 516 100.0% 501 100.0%

Table III.1.37 shows the number of households in the county by number of bedrooms and tenure.

There were 14 rental households with no bedrooms, otherwise known as studio apartments. Two-

bedroom households accounted for 28.93 percent of total households in Alliance city. In Alliance

city the 1,141 households with three-bedrooms accounted for 32.2 percent of all households, and

there were 334 five-bedroom or more households, which accounted for 9.43 percent of all

households.




Table III.1.37 Households by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Tenure % of Total

Own Rent Total

None 0 14 14 0.4

One 98 329 427 12.05

Two 507 518 1,025 28.93

Three 828 313 1,141 32.2

Four 494 108 602 16.99

Five or more 334 0 334 9.43

Total 2,261 1,282 3,543 100.0

The age of a structure influences its value. As shown in Table III.1.38, structures built in 1939 or

earlier had a median value of 73,300 dollars while structures built between 1950 and 1959 had a

median value of 138,200 dollars, and those built between 1990 and 1999 had a median value of 0

dollars. The newest structures tended to have the highest values and those built between 2010 and

2013 and from 2014 or later had median values of 0 dollars and, 0 dollars, respectively. The total

median value in Alliance city was 105,600 dollars.

Table III.1.38 Owner Occupied Median Value by Year

Structure Built Alliance city


Year Structure Built Median Value

1939 or earlier 73,300

1940 to 1949 67,200

1950 to 1959 138,200

1960 to 1969 137,900

1970 to 1979 136,600

1980 to 1989 138,400

1990 to 1999 0

2000 to 2009 342,200

2010 to 2013 0

2014 or later 0

Median Value 105,600




Household mortgage status is reported in Table III.1.39. In, Alliance city households with a mortgage

accounted for 49.4 percent of all households or 1,118 housing units, and the remaining 46.1 percent

or 1,042 units had no mortgage. Of those units with a mortgage, 76 had either a second mortgage or

home equity loan, 0 had both a second mortgage and home equity loan, and 1,042 or 46.1 percent

had no second mortgage or no home equity loan.

Table III.1.39 Mortgage Status


Mortgage Status Alliance city

Households % of Households

Housing units with a mortgage, contract to purchase, or similar debt 1,118 49.4

With either a second mortgage or home equity loan, but not both 76 3.4

Second mortgage only 0 0

Home equity loan only 76 3.4

Both second mortgage and home equity loan 0 0

No second mortgage and no home equity loan 1,042 46.1

Housing units without a mortgage 1,143 50.6

Total 2,261 100.0%

Table III.1.40 lists the Alliance city median rent as 496 dollars and the median home value as 105,600

dollars in 2019.

Table III.1.40 Median Rent

Alliance city 2019 Five-Year ACS Data Place Rent

Median Rent $496

Median Home Value $105,600




Housing Problems

Households are classified as having housing problems if they face overcrowding, incomplete

plumbing or kitchen facilities, or cost burdens. Overcrowding is defined as having from 1.1 to 1.5

people per room per residence, with severe overcrowding defined as having more than 1.5 people

per room. Households with overcrowding are shown in Table III.1.41. In 2019, an estimated 2

percent of households were overcrowded, and an additional 0.6 percent were severely overcrowded.

Table III.1.41 Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding


Data Source

No Overcrowding Overcrowding Severe Overcrowding Total

Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total

Owner

2010 Five-Year ACS

2,271 98.2% 42 1.8% 0 0% 2,313

2019 Five-Year ACS

2,224 98.4% 16 0.7% 21 0.9% 2,261

Renter

2010 Five-Year ACS

1,297 98.3% 14 1.1% 9 0.7% 3,633

2019 Five-Year ACS

1,226 95.6% 56 4.4% 0 0% 3,543

Total

2010 Five-Year ACS

3,568 98.2% 56 1.5% 9 0.2% 3,633

2019 Five-Year ACS

3,450 97.4% 72 2% 21 0.6% 3,543

Incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities are another indicator of potential housing problems.

According to the Census Bureau, a housing unit is classified as lacking complete plumbing facilities

when any of the following are not present: piped hot and cold water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or

shower. Likewise, a unit is categorized as deficient when any of the following are missing from the

kitchen: a sink with piped hot and cold water, a range or cook top and oven, and a refrigerator. This

data is displayed in Table III.1.42 and Table III.1.43, below.




There were a total of 0 households with incomplete plumbing facilities in 2019, representing 0

percent of households in Alliance city. This is compared to 0.6 percent of households lacking

complete plumbing facilities in 2010.

Table III.1.42 Households with Incomplete Plumbing Facilities

2010 and 2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Households 2010 Five-Year ACS 2019 Five-Year ACS

With Complete Plumbing Facilities 3,613 3,543

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 20 0

Total Households 3,633 3,543

Percent Lacking 0.6% 0%

There were 78 households lacking complete kitchen facilities in 2019, compared to 0 households in

2010. This was a change from 0 percent of households in 2010 to 2.2 percent in 2019.

Table III.1.43 Households with Incomplete Kitchen Facilities

Alliance city 2010 and 2019 Five-Year ACS Data

Households 2010 Five-Year ACS 2019 Five-Year

ACS

With Complete Kitchen Facilities 3,633 3,465

Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 0 78

Total Households 3,633 3,543

Percent Lacking 0% 2.2%

Cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that range from 30.0 to 50.0 percent of gross household

income; severe cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that exceed 50.0 percent of gross

household income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy

payments, water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the

determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, this

figure represents monthly rent and selected electricity and natural gas energy charges.




As seen in Table III.1.44, in Alliance city 15.6 percent of households had a cost burden and 7.7

percent had a severe cost burden. Some 22.3 percent of renters were cost burdened, and 19 percent

were severely cost burdened. Owner-occupied households without a mortgage had a cost burden

rate of 8.6 percent and a severe cost burden rate of 1.3 percent. Owner occupied households with a

mortgage had a cost burden rate of 15.1 percent, and severe cost burden at 1.2 percent.

Table III.1.44 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden by Tenure


Data Source

Less Than 30% 31%-50% Above 50% Not Computed

Total

Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total

Owner With a Mortgage

2010 Five-

Year ACS 968 82.7% 146 12.5% 56 4.8% 0 0% 1,170

2019 Five-

Year ACS 936 83.7% 169 15.1% 13 1.2% 0 0% 1,118

Owner Without a Mortgage

2010 Five-

Year ACS 1,008 88.2% 52 4.5% 83 7.3% 0 0% 1,143

2019 Five-

Year ACS 1,030 90.1% 98 8.6% 15 1.3% 0 0% 1,143

Renter

2010 Five-

Year ACS 767 58.1% 215 16.3% 263 19.9% 75 5.7% 1,320

2019 Five-

Year ACS 630 49.1% 286 22.3% 244 19% 122 9.5% 1,282

Total

2010 Five-

Year ACS 2,743 75.5% 413 11.4% 402 11.1% 75 2.1% 3,633

2019 Five-

Year ACS 2,596 73.3% 553 15.6% 272 7.7% 122 3.4% 3,543




Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)

The following table set shows Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. If a data

point is not available or is missing, a “.” or “%” will be present in its place. To make this dataset more

accessible to the average user the income brackets were replaced with actual HUD Area Median

Family Income (HAMFI/MFI) from Box Butte County. Below is a table showing the MFI breakdown:

Box Butte County MFI

Income Bracket Actual Income

0 – 30% MFI $0 to $22,560

30.1 – 50% MFI $22,561 to $37,600

50.1 – 80% MFI $37,601 to $60,160

80.1 – 100% MFI $60,161 to $75,200

Above 100% MFI Above $75,200




Housing Problems by Income, Race, and Tenure

Table III.1.45 through Table III.1.50 show households with housing problems by race/ethnicity.

These tables can be used to determine if there is a disproportionate housing need for any racial or

ethnic groups. If any racial/ethnic group faces housing problems at a rate of ten percentage points or

high than the jurisdiction average, then they have a disproportionate share of housing problems.

Housing problems are defined as any household that has overcrowding, inadequate kitchen or

plumbing facilities, or are cost burdened (pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing). In

Alliance city, housing problems are faced by 280 White homeowner households, 0 Black

homeowner households, 0 Asian homeowner households, and 15 Hispanic homeowner households.

Table III.1.45 Percent of Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race

Alliance city 2013–2017 HUD CHAS Data

Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any

Race) Total

White Black Asian American

Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race

With Housing Problems

$0 to $22,560 84% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75%

$22,561 to $37,600 73.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 73.3%

$37,601 to $60,160 22.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 26.7%

$60,161 to $75,200 11.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9.8%

Above $75,200 1.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.6%

Total 13.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.2% 12.5%

Without Housing Problems

$0 to $22,560 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 25%

$22,561 to $37,600 26.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 26.7%

$37,601 to $60,160 77.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 73.3%

$60,161 to $75,200 88.2% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 90.2%

Above $75,200 98.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 98.4%

Total 86.6% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 93.8% 87.5%




Table III.1.46 Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any Race)

Total White Black Asian

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,560 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 105

$22,561 to $37,600 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 55

$37,601 to $60,160 65 0 0 0 0 0 15 80

$60,161 to $75,200 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

Above $75,200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

Total 280 0 0 0 0 0 15 295


$0 to $22,560 20 0 0 0 0 0 15 35

$22,561 to $37,600 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

$37,601 to $60,160 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 220

$60,161 to $75,200 225 25 0 0 0 0 25 275

Above $75,200 1,325 0 0 0 0 0 185 1,510

Total 1,810 25 0 0 0 0 225 2,060

Not Computed

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,561 to $37,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,560 125 0 0 0 0 0 15 140

$22,561 to $37,600 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 75

$37,601 to $60,160 285 0 0 0 0 0 15 300

$60,161 to $75,200 255 25 0 0 0 0 25 305

Above $75,200 1,350 0 0 0 0 0 185 1,535

Total 2,090 25 0 0 0 0 240 2,355




In total, some 490 renter households face housing problems in Alliance city. Of these, some 390

white renter households, 15 black renter households, 0 Asian renter households, and 10 Hispanic

renter households face housing problems.

Table III.1.47 Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic

(Any Race)


American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,560 185 0 0 0 0 20 0 205

$22,561 to $37,600 110 0 0 55 0 0 10 175

$37,601 to $60,160 70 15 0 0 0 0 0 85

$60,161 to $75,200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 390 15 0 55 0 20 10 490


$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,561 to $37,600 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 85

$37,601 to $60,160 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 180

$60,161 to $75,200 55 0 0 0 30 0 35 120

Above $75,200 185 0 0 0 0 0 10 195

Total 505 0 0 0 30 0 45 580

Not Computed

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50

$22,561 to $37,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50

Total

$0 to $22,560 185 0 0 0 0 20 50 255

$22,561 to $37,600 195 0 0 55 0 0 10 260

$37,601 to $60,160 250 15 0 0 0 0 0 265

$60,161 to $75,200 80 0 0 0 30 0 35 145

Above $75,200 185 0 0 0 0 0 10 195

Total 895 15 0 55 30 20 105 1,120




Table III.1.48 Percent of Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income Non-Hispanic by Race

Hispanic (Any Race)


American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,560 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 80.4%

$22,561 to $37,600 56.4% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 67.3%

$37,601 to $60,160 28% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32.1%

$60,161 to $75,200 31.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17.2%

Above $75,200 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 43.6% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 9.5% 43.8%


$0 to $22,560 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

$22,561 to $37,600 43.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32.7%

$37,601 to $60,160 72% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67.9%

$60,161 to $75,200 68.8% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 82.8%

Above $75,200 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total 56.4% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 42.9% 51.8%

Overall, there are 785 households, or 22.6 percent of households with housing problems in Alliance

city. This includes 670 White households, 15 Black households, 0 Asian households, 55 American

Indian, 0 Pacific Islander, and 20 “other” race households with housing problems. In addition, there

are 25 Hispanic households with housing problems. This is shown in Table III.1.50.

Table III.1.49 Percent of Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic

(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,560 93.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 78.5% $22,561 to $37,600 61.1% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 68.7% $37,601 to $60,160 25.2% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 29.2% $60,161 to $75,200 16.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12.2% Above $75,200 1.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.4%

Total 22.4% 37.5% 0% 100% 0% 100% 7.2% 22.6%


$0 to $22,560 6.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23.1% 8.9% $22,561 to $37,600 38.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 31.3% $37,601 to $60,160 74.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 70.8% $60,161 to $75,200 83.6% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 87.8% Above $75,200 98.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 98.6%

Total 77.6% 62.5% 0% 0% 100% 0% 78.3% 76%




Table III.1.50 Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any Race)


American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,560 290 0 0 0 0 20 0 310

$22,561 to $37,600

165 0 0 55 0 0 10 230

$37,601 to $60,160

135 15 0 0 0 0 15 165

$60,161 to $75,200

55 0 0 0 0 0 0 55

Above $75,200 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

Total 670 15 0 55 0 20 25 785


$0 to $22,560 20 0 0 0 0 0 15 35

$22,561 to $37,600

105 0 0 0 0 0 0 105

$37,601 to $60,160

400 0 0 0 0 0 0 400

$60,161 to $75,200

280 25 0 0 30 0 60 395

Above $75,200 1,510 0 0 0 0 0 195 1,705

Total 2,315 25 0 0 30 0 270 2,640

Not Computed

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50

$22,561 to $37,600

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50

Total

$0 to $22,560 310 0 0 0 0 20 65 395

$22,561 to $37,600

270 0 0 55 0 0 10 335

$37,601 to $60,160

535 15 0 0 0 0 15 565

$60,161 to $75,200

335 25 0 0 30 0 60 450

Above $75,200 1,535 0 0 0 0 0 195 1,730

Total 2,985 40 0 55 30 20 345 3,475




Table III.1.51 through Table III.1.53 show the percent of households with a severe housing problem

by tenure and race.

Table III.1.51 Percent of Homeowner Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race

With A Severe Housing Problem

$0 to $22,560 62.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 55.6%

$22,561 to $37,600

20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20%

$37,601 to $60,160

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5%

$60,161 to $75,200

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Above $75,200 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 4.3% 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.2% 4.5%

Without A Severe Housing Problems

$0 to $22,560 37.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 44.4%

$22,561 to $37,600

80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80%

$37,601 to $60,160

100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 95%

$60,161 to $75,200

100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Above $75,200 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total 95.7% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 93.8% 95.5%

Table III.1.52 Percent of Renter Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,560 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 80.4%

$22,561 to $37,600 7.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.9%

$37,601 to $60,160 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

$60,161 to $75,200 31.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17.2%

Above $75,200 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 25.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 21.9%


$0 to $22,560 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

$22,561 to $37,600 92.1% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 94.1%

$37,601 to $60,160 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

$60,161 to $75,200 68.8% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 82.8%

Above $75,200 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total 74.9% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 52.4% 73.7%




Table III.1.53 Percent of Total Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic

(Any Race) Total

White Black Asian American Indian Pacific Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,560 85.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 71.8%

$22,561 to $37,600

11.3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9.1%

$37,601 to $60,160

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2.6%

$60,161 to $75,200

7.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.6%

Above $75,200 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 10.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 4.3% 10.1%


$0 to $22,560 14.8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23.1% 15.4%

$22,561 to $37,600

88.7% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 90.9%

$37,601 to $60,160

100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 97.4%

$60,161 to $75,200

92.5% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 94.4%

Above $75,200 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total 89.4% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 81.2% 88.5%




These racial/ethnic groups tend to be disproportionately impacted by severe housing problems, as

seen in Table III.1.54. Severe housing problems include overcrowding at a rate of more than 1.5

persons per room and housing costs exceeding 50 percent of the household income. Some 0 black

homeowner households face severe housing problems, as well as 0 Asian homeowner households,

and 15 Hispanic homeowner households.

Table III.1.54 Total Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,560 260 0 0 0 0 20 0 280

$22,561 to $37,600

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

$37,601 to $60,160

0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15

$60,161 to $75,200

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 315 0 0 0 0 20 15 350


$0 to $22,560 45 0 0 0 0 0 15 60

$22,561 to $37,600

235 0 0 55 0 0 10 300

$37,601 to $60,160

540 15 0 0 0 0 0 555

$60,161 to $75,200

310 25 0 0 30 0 60 425

Above $75,200 1,535 0 0 0 0 0 195 1,730

Total 2,665 40 0 55 30 0 280 3,070

Not Computed

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50

$22,561 to $37,600

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50

Total

$0 to $22,560 305 0 0 0 0 20 65 390

$22,561 to $37,600

265 0 0 55 0 0 10 330

$37,601 to $60,160

540 15 0 0 0 0 15 570

$60,161 to $75,200

335 25 0 0 30 0 60 450

Above $75,200 1,535 0 0 0 0 0 195 1,730

Total 2,980 40 0 55 30 20 345 3,470




As seen in Table III.1.55 and Table III.1.56, the most common housing problem tends to be housing

cost burdens. More than 430 households have a cost burden and 225 have a severe cost burden.

Some 245 renter households are impacted by cost burdens, and 160 are impacted by severe cost

burdens. On the other hand, some 185 owner-occupied households have cost burdens, and 65 have

severe cost burdens. Overall there are 2,645 households without a housing problem.

Table III.1.55 Percent of Housing Problems by Income and Tenure


Housing Problem $0 to

$22,560 $22,561 to

$37,600 $37,601 to

$60,160 $60,161 to

$75,200 Above $75,200

Total

Owner-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Severely overcrowded with > 1.5 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

0% 5.9% 0% 0% 0% 0.2%

Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems)

10.7% 5.9% 5% 0% 0% 1.4%

Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income (and none of the above problems)

46.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.8%

Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems)

17.9% 58.8% 21.7% 9.8% 1.6% 7.9%

Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems)

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Has none of the 4 housing problems

25% 29.4% 73.3% 90.2% 98.4% 87.7%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Renter-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities

23.5% 0% 0% 17.2% 0% 7.6%

Severely overcrowded with > 1.5 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


56.9% 5.8% 0% 0% 0% 14.2%


0% 61.5% 32.1% 0% 0% 21.8%


19.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.4%

Has none of the 4 housing problems

0% 32.7% 67.9% 82.8% 100% 52%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%




Table III.1.56 Housing Problems by Income and Tenure


Housing Problem $0 to

$22,560 $22,561 to

$37,600 $37,601 to

$60,160 $60,161 to

$75,200 Above

$75,200 Total

Owner-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0

Severely Overcrowded with > 1.5 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

0 4 0 0 0 4


15 4 15 0 0 34


65 0 0 0 0 65


25 40 65 30 25 185


0 0 0 0 0 0

Has none of the 4 housing problems 35 20 220 275 1,510 2,060

Total 140 68 300 305 1,535 2,348

Renter-Occupied



0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0


145 15 0 0 0 160


0 160 85 0 0 245


50 0 0 0 0 50

Has none of the 4 housing problems 0 85 180 120 200 585

Total 255 260 265 145 200 1,125

Total



0 4 0 0 0 4


15 4 15 0 0 34


210 15 0 0 0 225


25 200 150 30 25 430


50 0 0 0 0 50

Has none of the 4 housing problems 35 105 400 395 1,710 2,645

Total 395 328 565 450 1,735 3,473




Cost Burdens

For owner occupied housing, elderly non-family households are most likely to be impacted by

housing cost burdens, with 16.7 percent of these households having a cost burden or severe cost

burden. For lower income owner households, elderly non-family households and large families are

most likely to experience cost burdens. Some 44.4 percent of elderly non-family and 100 percent of

large family households below 30 percent HAMFI face cost burdens or severe cost burdens. These

data are shown in Table III.1.57




Table III.1.57 Owner-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost

Burden Alliance city

2013–2017 HUD CHAS Data

Income Elderly Family

Small Family

Large Family

Elderly Non-Family

Other Household

Total

No Cost Burden

$0 to $22,560 0 15 0 10 10 35

$22,561 to $37,600 4 0 15 15 0 34

$37,601 to $60,160 70 70 15 65 20 240

$60,161 to $75,200 100 25 25 90 35 275

Above $75,200 305 800 185 110 110 1,510

Total 479 910 240 290 175 2,094

Cost Burden

$0 to $22,560 0 20 15 4 0 39

$22,561 to $37,600 15 0 0 30 0 45

$37,601 to $60,160 10 35 4 20 0 69

$60,161 to $75,200 20 10 0 0 0 30

Above $75,200 0 15 0 0 10 25

Total 45 80 19 54 10 208

Severe Cost Burden

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 4 55 59

$22,561 to $37,600 0 0 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 4 55 59

Cost Burden Not Computed

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,561 to $37,600 0 0 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,560 0 35 15 18 65 133

$22,561 to $37,600 19 0 15 45 0 79

$37,601 to $60,160 80 105 19 85 20 309

$60,161 to $75,200 120 35 25 90 35 305

Above $75,200 305 815 185 110 120 1,535

Total 524 990 259 348 240 2,361




Table III.1.58 displays cost burden in renter-occupied households by family status and income. Renter

households tend to be impacted at a higher rate by cost burdens than owner households. Some 245

renter occupied households faced cost burdens, compared to 208 owner occupied households. Of

these, there are 0 renter households with incomes less than 30 percent HAMFI facing housing

problems.




Table III.1.58 Renter-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost

Burden Alliance city


Income Elderly Family

Small Family

Large Family

Elderly Non-Family

Other Household

Total

No Cost Burden

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,561 to $37,600 0 20 0 0 65 85

$37,601 to $60,160 4 40 45 30 60 179

$60,161 to $75,200 0 65 0 25 60 150

Above $75,200 10 75 0 0 115 200

Total 14 200 45 55 300 614

Cost Burden

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,561 to $37,600 55 20 20 25 35 155

$37,601 to $60,160 0 50 0 25 15 90

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 55 70 20 50 50 245

Severe Cost Burden

$0 to $22,560 0 35 0 140 30 205

$22,561 to $37,600 0 0 0 15 0 15

$37,601 to $60,160 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 35 0 155 30 220

Cost Burden Not Computed

$0 to $22,560 0 0 0 0 50 50

$22,561 to $37,600 0 0 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160 0 0 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 50 50

Total

$0 to $22,560 0 35 0 140 80 255

$22,561 to $37,600 55 40 20 40 100 255

$37,601 to $60,160 4 90 45 55 75 269

$60,161 to $75,200 0 65 0 25 60 150

Above $75,200 10 75 0 0 115 200

Total 69 305 65 260 430 1,129




In total, some 450 households face cost burdens, and 285 face severe cost burdens. This includes

205 owner households and 245 renter households facing cost burdens, and another 65 owner

households and 220 renter households facing severe cost burdens, as seen in Table III.1.59.

Table III.1.59 Households with Cost Burden by Tenure and Race


Race No Cost Burden

Cost Burden Severe Cost

Burden Not

Computed Total

Owner-Occupied

White 1,820 205 65 0 2,090

Black 25 0 0 0 25

Asian 0 0 0 0 0

American Indian 0 0 0 0 0

Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0

Other Race 0 0 0 0 0

Hispanic 240 0 0 0 240

Total 2,085 205 65 0 2,355

Renter-Occupied

White 530 165 200 0 895

Black 0 15 0 0 15

Asian 0 0 0 0 0




Hispanic 50 10 0 50 110

Total 610 245 220 50 1,125

Total

White 2,350 370 265 0 2,985

Black 25 15 0 0 40

Asian 0 0 0 0 0




Hispanic 290 10 0 50 350

Total 2,695 450 285 50 3,480




Lead-Based Paint Risks

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), older homes are more likely to contain

lead-based paint, which is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning. A home built between

1960 and 1977 has a 24 percent chance of containing lead-based paint, while a home built from

1940 to 1959 has a 69 percent chance of containing lead-based paint. Homes built before 1940 have

the highest rate of lead-based paint at 87 percent3.

Table III.1.60 shows the risk of lead-based paint for households with young children present. As seen,

there are an estimated 355 households built between 1940 and 1979 with young children present,

and 149 built prior to 1939.

3 https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#sl-home




Table III.1.60 Vintage of Households by Income and Presence of Young

Children Alliance city


Income One or more

children age 6 or younger

No children age 6 or younger

Total

Built 1939 or Earlier

$0 to $22,560 35 40 75

$22,561 to $37,600 4 65 69

$37,601 to $60,160 55 75 130

$60,161 to $75,200 0 120 120

Above $75,200 55 410 465

Total 149 710 859

Built 1940 to 1979

$0 to $22,560 20 205 225

$22,561 to $37,600 25 225 250

$37,601 to $60,160 55 295 350

$60,161 to $75,200 105 170 275

Above $75,200 150 775 925

Total 355 1,670 2,025

Built 1980 or Later

$0 to $22,560 10 85 95

$22,561 to $37,600 10 0 10

$37,601 to $60,160 0 90 90

$60,161 to $75,200 4 45 49

Above $75,200 60 275 335

Total 84 495 579

Total

$0 to $22,560 65 330 395

$22,561 to $37,600 39 290 329

$37,601 to $60,160 110 460 570

$60,161 to $75,200 109 335 444

Above $75,200 265 1,460 1,725

Total 588 2,875 3,463




Elderly Housing Needs

Table III.1.61 shows the rate of housing problems for elderly households, ages 62 to 74, and extra

elderly households, ages 75 and above. Some 154 elderly and 234 extra-elderly households have

housing problems. Of these, some 39 elderly households with housing problems have incomes less

than 30 percent MFI, and 109 extra-elderly households have incomes below 30 percent MFI.

Table III.1.61 Households with Housing Problems by Income and Elderly Status


Income Elderly Extra-Elderly Non-Elderly Total


$0 to $22,560 39 109 155 303

$22,561 to $37,600 70 75 79 224

$37,601 to $60,160 25 25 110 160

$60,161 to $75,200 20 25 10 55

Above $75,200 0 0 25 25

Total 154 234 379 767


$0 to $22,560 0 10 25 35

$22,561 to $37,600 15 4 85 104

$37,601 to $60,160 84 85 235 404

$60,161 to $75,200 155 35 205 395

Above $75,200 410 70 1,225 1,705

Total 664 204 1,775 2,643

Not Computed

$0 to $22,560 0 0 50 50

$22,561 to $37,600 0 0 0 0

$37,601 to $60,160 0 0 0 0

$60,161 to $75,200 0 0 0 0

Above $75,200 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 50 50

Total

$0 to $22,560 39 119 230 388

$22,561 to $37,600 85 79 164 328

$37,601 to $60,160 109 110 345 564

$60,161 to $75,200 175 60 215 450

Above $75,200 410 70 1,250 1,730

Total 818 438 2,204 3,460




Survey of Rental Properties

From September through December of 2020, a

telephone survey was conducted with landlords

and rental property managers throughout

Nebraska. Table III.1.62, presents some basic

statistics about the completed surveys from this

and other surveys conducted from 2002 through

2020 in Alliance city. The number of completed

surveys decreased to 6 in 2020 from 8 in 2019.

Between 2019 and 2020 the vacancy rate for all

units decreased by 3.1 percentage points and

was at 7.8 percent in 2020.

Table III.1.63 shows the amount of total and

vacant units with their associated vacancy rates.

At the time of the survey, there were an estimated

21 single-family units in Alliance city, with 0 of

them available. This translates into a vacancy rate

of 0 percent in Alliance city, which compares to

a single-family vacancy rate of 2.8 percent for the

State of Nebraska. There were 110 apartment

units reported in the survey, with 10 of them

available, which resulted in a vacancy rate of 9.1 percent. This compares to a statewide vacancy rate

of 3.7 percent for apartment units across the state.

Table III.1.63 Rental Vacancy Survey by Type

Alliance city 2020 Survey of Rental Properties

Place Total Units Vacant Units Vacancy Rate Five-Year Average

Single-Family 21 0 0% 3.4%

Apartments 110 10 9.1% 6.3%

Mobile Homes 0 0 0% 0%

“Other” Units 0 0 0% 0%

Don’t Know 10 1 10% .

Total 141 11 7.8% 7.5%

Table III.1.62 Survey of Rental Properties

Alliance city 2002–2020 Survey of Rental Properties

Year Completed

Surveys Total Units

Vacancy Rate

Absorption Rate

2002 0 0 0 0

2003 0 0 0 0

2004 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0

2006 0 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0 0

2008 0 0 0 0

2009 0 0 0 0

2010 0 0 0 0

2011 0 0 0 0

2012 20 919 5.8 23.3

2013 18 584 6.7 22

2014 20 608 2.8 63.7

2015 18 684 2.6 35.6

2016 15 463 13 43.3

2017 17 417 10.8 23.1

2018 12 360 8.1 44

2019 8 295 4.7 32

2020 6 141 7.8 30.5




Diagram III.1.14 Survey Responses by Year

Alliance city Survey of Rental Properties

Diagram III.1.15

Units and Vacancy Rate by Year Alliance city





Table III.1.64 reports units by number of bedrooms. There were 49 two-bedroom apartment units

and 24 three-bedroom units. Overall, the 51 two-bedroom units accounted for 36.2 percent of all

units, and the 35 three-bedroom units accounted for 24.8 percent. Several respondents choose not

to provide bedroom sizes, which accounted for the 26 units listed as “Don’t Know.”

Table III.1.64 Rental Units by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Single-Family Units

Apartment Units

Mobile Homes

“Other” Units

Don’t Know

Total

Efficiency 0 0 0 0 . 0

One 0 16 0 0 . 16

Two 2 49 0 0 . 51

Three 11 24 0 0 . 35

Four 8 5 0 0 . 13

Don’t Know 0 16 0 0 10 26

Total 21 110 0 0 10 141

Table III.1.65 displays the vacancy rate of

single-family units by the number of

bedrooms. Three-bedroom units were the

most common type of reported single-

family unit, which had a vacancy rate of 0

percent.

Table III.1.66 displays the vacancy rate of

apartment units by the number of

bedrooms. The most common apartment

units were Two-bedroom units, which had

a vacancy rate of 2 percent.

Table III.1.65 Single-Family Units by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Units Available Units Vacancy Rates

Efficiency 0 0 0%

One 0 0 0%

Two 2 0 0%

Three 11 0 0%

Four 8 0 0%

Don’t know 0 0 0%

Total 21 0 0%




Table III.1.66 Apartment Units by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Units Available Units Vacancy Rates

Efficiency 0 0 0%

One 16 1 6.2%

Two 49 1 2%

Three 24 0 0%

Four 5 0 0%

Don’t know 16 8 50%

Total 110 10 9.1%

Average market-rate rents by unit type are shown in Table III.1.67. Not all respondents were able to

disclose the rental amounts for their units, so there may be some statistical aberrations in the

computed rental rates, but generally those units with more bedrooms had higher rents.

Table III.1.67 Average Market Rate Rents by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Single-Family Units

Apartment Units

Mobile Homes

“Other” Units Total

Efficiency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

One $0 $285 $0 $0 $285

Two $0 $450 $0 $0 $450

Three $925 $0 $0 $0 $925

Four $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Average4 $767 $439 $0 $0 $614

Median market-rate rents by unit type are shown in Table III.1.68. Not all respondents were able to

disclose the rental amounts for their units, so there may be some statistical aberrations in the

computed rental rates, but generally those units with more bedrooms had higher rents.

Table III.1.68 Median Market Rate Rents by Number of Bedrooms


Number of Bedrooms

Single-Family Units

Apartment Units

Mobile Homes

“Other” Units Total

Efficiency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

One $0 $285 $0 $0 $285

Two $0 $450 $0 $0 $450

Three $925 $0 $0 $0 $925

Four $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Average $825 $450 $0 $0 $581

4 Rents for units missing number of bedrooms are not shown.




Table III.1.69 shows vacancy rates for single-family units by average rental rates for Alliance city. The

most common rent for single-family units was between 751 and 1,000 dollars and the units in this

price range had a vacancy rate of 0 percent.

Table III.1.69 Single-Family Market Rate Rents by Vacancy Status


Average Rents Single-Family

Units Available Single-

Family Units Vacancy Rate

Less Than $500 0 0 0%

$500 to $750 10 0 0%

$751 to $1,000 11 0 0%

$1,001 to $1,250 0 0 0%

$1,251 to $1,500 0 0 0%

Above $1,500 0 0 0%

Missing 0 0 0%

Total 21 0 0%

The average rent and availability of apartment units is displayed in Table III.1.70. The most common

rent for apartment rents was less than 500 dollars and the units in this price range had a vacancy rate

of 2.1 percent.

Table III.1.70 Apartment Market Rate Rents by Vacancy Status


Average Rents Apartment

Units

Available Apartment

Units Vacancy Rate

Less Than $500 94 2 2.1%

$500 to $750 0 0 0%

$751 to $1,000 0 0 0%

$1,001 to $1,250 0 0 0%

$1,251 to $1,500 0 0 0%

Above $1,500 0 0 0%

Missing 16 8 50%

Total 110 10 9.1%




Respondents were asked if utilities are included in the rent and as shown in Table III.1.71; 1

respondents, or 25 percent, included some sort of utility in the rent.

Table III.1.71 Are there any utilities included with

the rent? Alliance city

2020 Survey of Rental Properties

Period Respondent

Yes 1

No 3

% Offering Utilities 25%

The type of utility included in the rent is shown in Table III.1.72. There were 0 respondents who

included electricity, 0 respondents who included natural gas, 1 respondents who included water and

sewer and 1 respondents included trash collection in the rent.

Table III.1.72 Which utilities are included with the rent?


Type of Utility Provided Respondent

Electricity 0

Natural Gas 0

Water/Sewer 1

Trash Collection 1




Table III.1.73 shows the number of survey respondents who

keep a waiting list. 1 respondents said they keep a waitlist,

with an estimated 0 number of persons on the waiting list.

Respondents were also asked how they would rate the need

for renovating existing units. As shown in Table III.1.74, 1

respondents said there was no need for renovating single-

family units, with 1 respondents saying there was extreme

need for renovating single-family units. Likewise, 1

respondents indicated no need for renovating existing apartment units, with 1 respondents saying

there was extreme need for renovating existing apartment units.

Table III.1.74 How would you rate the need for renovation of existing units in the city?


Need Single-Family Apartments Mobile Homes Other Units

No Need 1 1 1 1

Low Need 0 0 0 0

Moderate Need 0 0 0 0

High Need 1 1 2 2

Extreme Need 1 1 0 0

Respondents were also asked how they would rate the need for constructing new units. As shown in

Table III.1.75, 1 respondents said there was no need for new single-family units, with 0 respondents

saying there was extreme need for constructing new single-family units. Likewise, 1 respondents

indicated no need for new apartment units, with 0 respondents saying there was extreme need for

constructing new apartment units.

Table III.1.75 How would you rate the need for construction of new units in the city?


Need Single-Family Apartments Mobile Homes Other Units

No Need 1 1 1 1

Low Need 0 0 0 0

Moderate Need 1 1 0 0

High Need 1 1 0 0

Extreme Need 0 0 0 0

Table III.1.73 Do you keep a waiting list?


Period Respondent

Yes 1

No 3

Waitlist Size 0




Diagram III.1.16 Need for Rehabilitation of Units

Alliance city Survey of Rental Properties




Diagram III.1.17

Need for Construction of Additional Units Alliance city


alliance city nebraska profile volume iii

Documents