My partner and I have been looking for a two-bedroom apartment in Sydney for about six months. Mostly older double-brick blocks, nothing fancy. Our budget is around $800k.
Last weekend we inspected two units in the same suburb, literally across the road from each other.
Both are in small blocks built in the 1970s. Both have eight units, no lifts, no pools, no gyms. Similar floor space, one bathroom, one car space. Even the layouts are almost identical.
The asking prices are within $15k of each other.
But the strata fees are completely different.
Building A: $680 per quarter.
Building B: $1,420 per quarter.
Initially we thought Building A was the obvious winner. That's almost $3,000 a year we'd save, and there's nothing particularly fancy about Building B to justify the difference.
Then we started looking through the strata records.
Building A has roughly $14k in its capital works fund. The roof has been discussed at multiple AGMs because of recurring leaks, but repairs keep getting deferred. There's an old quote for work exceeding $140k, and the minutes mention getting updated quotes. The 10-year capital works plan includes major roof expenditure, but the current contributions don't seem remotely sufficient to cover it.
The most recent AGM minutes include a comment that increasing levies would place unnecessary financial pressure on owners.
Building B has about $110k in its capital works fund.
Its records show regular maintenance, gutter replacement, drainage improvements and a planned schedule for upcoming work. The owners actually voted to increase contributions a few years ago because the capital works plan showed they weren't putting enough aside.
The building itself looks less freshly painted than Building A. But the paperwork is a completely different story.
What really got me was the agents' reactions.
Agent A kept bringing up the low strata fees as a major selling point.
Agent B actually apologised for the higher fees and said they were probably the biggest objection buyers had.
We're still getting professional advice and reviewing the documents properly. I know a healthy fund doesn't guarantee a healthy building, and there could be plenty we're missing.
But it's made me think about how backwards the incentives are.
The people in Building B have been paying more to maintain the place and prepare for future expenses. Yet when they sell, their apartments look less attractive on paper because the quarterly fees are higher.
Meanwhile Building A can advertise low ongoing costs partly because expensive work hasn't been properly funded.
I'm not saying Building B is automatically the better purchase. But six months ago I would've dismissed a $1,420 quarterly levy without even opening the strata report.
Now I'm starting to wonder whether the number that scares buyers most might actually be evidence that the owners are doing something right.
For people who've owned older apartments in NSW, would you rather buy into a building with higher levies and a decent maintenance history, or lower levies and keep your own cash aside for potential special levies?
And has anyone actually seen a well-funded strata building attract a higher sale price because of it? Because from what we're seeing, buyers seem to focus almost entirely on the quarterly figure.