Island County has high net wealth, low credit card debt

Island County residents are doing pretty well financially, according to reports from financial technology company SmartAsset.

The county has one of the highest per capita net wealth levels and one of the lowest per capita credit card debts among counties in Washington state, the company determined.

Island County’s per capita income is slightly higher than the state average, though Oak Harbor’s relatively low income level weighs down the average, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

SmartAsset crunched numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 American Community Survey and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to come up with a “net worth index” that takes per capita income, average debt and net worth into account. Island County has a per capita income of $31,563, an average $51,164 in debt and an average net worth of $44,416. The net worth index is 29.34, which is the fifth highest in the state.

Jefferson County is the top with an index of 38.62 and San Juan County is second with 33.88.

The company also calculated the credit card debt index, which takes into account average income, wealth and credit card debt. Island County has the sixth best credit card debt index at 83.08. The average credit card debt in the county is $3,327.

By comparison, San Juan County has the best credit card debt index at 90. Lower debt indexes have higher numbers. The average amount of debt in San Juan County — $3,292 — is similar to Island County’s, but San Juan County has a substantially higher per capita income and wealth.

Island County’s per capita income is slightly higher than state and national averages. The county’s per capita income is $31,563, the state’s is $31,233 and the nation’s is $28,555, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 American Community Survey.

Clinton has the highest per capita income at $35,764. Coupeville’s is $29,815; Freeland’s is $30,044; Langley’s is $30,872; and Camano Island’s is $32,803. Oak Harbor’s is by far the lowest in the county at $23,204.

The calculation includes children, so communities with more juvenile non-working residents will have a lower average. Still, the city’s per capita income is lower than many communities in the state with a higher-than-average percentage of children.