How to Benchmark Your Strata Levies: A Committee's Methodology
What this guide covers
- Industry-wide levy benchmarks ($X per lot per quarter) are mostly meaningless because building costs vary by an order of magnitude across schemes — a townhouse complex and a 50-storey tower with a concierge are not the same product.
- The right benchmark is your own building, year-on-year, against its own capital works plan, against comparable schemes you can actually verify.
- Six numbers tell you whether your levies are realistic. None of them require third-party benchmark data.
- The honest answer is often "we don't know if they're high or low" — and that is a more useful starting point than a fabricated comparison number.
If you have ever sat at an AGM looking at a proposed levy increase and wondered whether the new figure is reasonable, you are not alone. The natural instinct is to search for an Australian average — "how much should strata levies cost?" — and compare your building to it.
The problem is that the average does not exist in any form a committee should rely on. Most published "average" levy figures come from one of three sources: industry-side surveys (Strata Community Association salary and operations surveys, mostly behind paywalls and aimed at strata managers, not committees); vendor marketing pages with no methodology disclosed; or media reports citing rising-cost-of-living trends without a defensible benchmark. None of these tell you whether your building is being levied appropriately.
The deeper issue is that "the average" is the wrong question. A two-storey walk-up of 12 lots in a regional centre, a 30-lot townhouse complex in suburban Melbourne, and a 200-unit high-rise with a pool, gym, concierge and embedded network in central Sydney are not comparable products. Their cost structures, compliance burdens, insurance premiums, capital works profiles, and management requirements differ by an order of magnitude. An "average" across all of them is a number with no useful application to any one of them.
This guide is a different approach. Instead of trying to find a benchmark that fits your building, it gives your committee a methodology for assessing whether your own levies are realistic against your own data. The output is not a single number; it is a structured judgement, grounded in numbers your scheme already has.
Why public benchmarks mislead
Three reasons the published numbers should be treated with care.
Sample bias. The schemes that appear in published benchmark data are the ones whose data was made available to the publisher. That is usually a strata-management firm's own portfolio, a particular insurer's book of business, or a vendor's customer base. None of those are random samples. A benchmark from a strata-management firm with a portfolio skewed toward older walk-ups will produce a low average; a benchmark from an insurer specialising in high-rise will produce a high one. Neither tells you what your building should pay.
Definition drift. What counts as a "levy"? In NSW, the administrative fund and the capital works fund are separate; some publishers report only one, some report both, some report only quarterly contributions and miss special levies entirely. Insurance premiums may sit inside levies or outside them depending on the scheme. Without a strict definition, the same physical building can produce three different "average levy" numbers depending on which line items the methodology counts.
Vintage. A 2022 benchmark in 2026 dollars is not a 2026 benchmark. Construction costs in Australia have averaged 4 to 6 per cent annual increase since 2022; insurance premiums have risen faster in many regions. A two-year-old benchmark understates current realistic levies even if the underlying methodology was sound.
The combined effect is that "the average Australian strata levy" is a number that exists in published form but does not survive contact with a real committee comparing it to a real building.
The six numbers that actually matter
The benchmark your committee should be running is internal: your building, against itself, against its own plan, over time. Six numbers do most of the work.
1. Annual levies per lot, broken down by fund
Total your building's quarterly levies for the year just ended. Separate the administrative fund contribution from the capital works fund contribution (sinking fund in some jurisdictions). Divide each by the number of lots.
This produces two numbers: admin fund per lot per year, capital works fund per lot per year. They are the building's headline cost figures and the basis for everything else.
A scheme with $40,000 annual admin levies across 30 lots is at $1,333 per lot. A scheme with $24,000 capital works contributions across the same 30 lots is at $800 per lot. Total: $2,133 per lot per year, or roughly $533 per quarter, before special levies.
These numbers are not benchmarks in themselves. They become benchmarks once you compare them to the next five.
2. Year-on-year change
Pull the same numbers for the last three years. The shape of the trend matters more than any single year's figure.
A scheme moving from $1,800 to $2,000 to $2,133 per lot is on a ~7 per cent annual upward trajectory, which is in the range of construction-cost inflation plus modest service-level changes. A scheme that was at $1,800 for three years and jumped to $2,500 has either absorbed a one-off increase (insurance premium, special levy load) or has under-funded for years and is now correcting. Either is informative.
The questions to ask of the trend:
- Is the growth rate consistent with broader construction and insurance inflation in your region?
- Are the year-on-year increases tracking the building's capital works plan, or independent of it?
- Have new line items appeared in the budget that did not exist three years ago (additional compliance, embedded network costs, security upgrades)?
A trend that looks abrupt has a story behind it; the committee should know the story before voting on the next year's contribution.
3. Capital works fund balance against the plan
Look at your scheme's 10-year capital works plan (the standard form is mandatory in NSW from 1 April 2026 when plans are reviewed or replaced). The plan recommends an annual contribution to the capital works fund. Compare the recommended contribution to the actual contribution being levied.
This is the single most diagnostic number for whether your levies are realistic.
If the recommended contribution is $50,000 per year and the building is levying $50,000 per year, the levies are aligned with the plan. If the recommended contribution is $50,000 and the building is levying $30,000, the building is underfunding by $20,000 per year. That gap compounds: by the time the major works fall due, the fund will be short by hundreds of thousands of dollars and a special levy will be mathematically unavoidable.
The reverse pattern — levying more than the plan requires — is rare but worth flagging when it appears. A building consistently overcontributing has either inherited the wrong plan, has an over-cautious plan, or is building reserves for items not yet in the plan.
UnitBuddy's capital works plan red flags guide covers how to read the plan itself. The key point for benchmarking is that the plan tells you what the levies should be; the levies tell you what is actually happening; the gap is the issue.
4. Insurance premium per lot
Building insurance is mandatory in every Australian jurisdiction and is one of the largest single line items in most schemes' admin fund. Pull last year's premium, divide by the number of lots, and track it against the previous two years.
Australian strata insurance has risen materially over the past five years for reasons including reinsurance market conditions, large weather-related claims in eastern states, and the long tail of cladding remediation costs. A scheme whose premium has doubled in three years is not unusual; one whose premium has stayed flat in the same period is unusual and worth understanding.
Two questions:
- What is the scheme's claims history (number, value, type)?
- When was the last building valuation, and is the sum insured still appropriate?
A scheme with no recent valuation may be either over-insured (paying for cover it cannot use) or under-insured (a much worse outcome on a major claim). The valuation cycle is a hidden driver of premium movement.
5. Strata management fee per lot
If your scheme has a strata manager, separate out the management fee component of admin fund spending. Look at:
- Schedule A annual fee per lot
- Total Schedule B charges over the year
- Total disbursements over the year
Together these give you the actual cost of strata management for the building, distinct from the rest of the admin fund.
Comparing this figure across years is informative. Comparing it to other buildings is harder than it looks because the schedule structure varies (the how to read a strata management proposal guide covers why two superficially similar fees can produce very different total costs). Within a single building, a year where Schedule B charges spiked is worth understanding — was it a one-off (a defect dispute, a major contractor procurement) or a structural shift in the manager's billing pattern?
6. Arrears as a percentage of levies billed
Total levies in arrears at year-end, divided by total levies billed for the year. A healthy scheme runs arrears below 5 per cent. A scheme at 10 to 15 per cent has a collection problem that usually traces to a small number of owners. A scheme above 15 per cent has an institutional issue that the committee needs to surface separately from the levy-setting process.
Arrears matter for benchmarking because they affect cash flow and may distort the apparent adequacy of contributions. A scheme that is "fully levied" on paper but only collecting 80 per cent is effectively underfunded by 20 per cent.
NSW reforms from 27 October 2025 formalised the hardship process: levy notices must include a Financial Hardship Information Statement, and reminder notices must be sent between 7 and 10 days after a missed payment before recovery action. These mechanics affect the timing of arrears more than the headline ratio.
Internal comparisons that actually work
Once you have your six numbers, the useful comparisons are the ones inside your own building.
Year-on-year. Same six numbers, this year vs. last vs. the year before. The shape of the change is more diagnostic than any single year.
Plan vs. actual. What the 10-year capital works plan recommends, what is being levied, what is being spent. Three numbers; the relationships between them tell most of the story.
Budget vs. actual. What the AGM approved at the start of the year, what was spent. A scheme consistently over budget in particular categories has a budgeting issue (or a forecasting issue) worth surfacing.
Major-item-by-major-item. Insurance, strata management, cleaning, gardening, lift maintenance, fire systems, electricity. Each one as a year-on-year line. The line items that grew fastest are where to ask the most questions.
These internal comparisons require nothing more than your building's own AGM packs and financial statements. The benchmark is the building's own history.
When external comparison is useful
External benchmarking does have a role, but only when you can verify the comparison.
Comparable buildings in your area. Two or three buildings in your suburb, of similar age, size and amenity profile, where you can talk to a committee member directly. Owners corporations are not commercial competitors; most committees will share their headline levy figures if asked privately. This is qualitative data, but it is grounded data.
Public auction results and strata reports. When a unit in a comparable building sells, the strata report that the buyer's lawyer requested becomes (selectively) public knowledge. Pre-purchase strata report providers' summaries sometimes appear in real estate listings and disclose levy figures. Aggregated across several recent sales in your area, this gives you a defensible-enough comparison set.
Insurance broker market data. Strata insurance brokers see hundreds of buildings in your geography. A broker can usually tell you, in qualitative terms, whether your scheme's premium per lot is at the high or low end of buildings of comparable age, construction type and claim history. This is privileged information; treat it as such.
Strata management proposal benchmarking. When you receive multiple strata management proposals (at first appointment or renewal), the spread of Schedule A fees across compliant proposals from reputable agencies is a real, current benchmark for that one cost line.
Notice what is missing from this list: industry-wide "average levy" figures, vendor-published per-lot calculators, and anonymous online surveys. Each of those produces a number, but the number cannot be traced to a methodology you can apply to your own building.
A worked example
A 30-lot mid-rise mixed-residential scheme in suburban Sydney, completed in 2008. Single lift, no pool, basic landscaping, no concierge, no embedded network.
Six numbers, this year:
| Number | Value | 3-year trend |
|---|---|---|
| Admin fund per lot per year | $2,400 | $2,000 → $2,200 → $2,400 (~9% pa) |
| Capital works fund per lot per year | $900 | $700 → $800 → $900 (~13% pa) |
| Capital works plan recommended contribution per lot | $1,200 | — |
| Insurance premium per lot | $1,100 | $700 → $900 → $1,100 (~25% pa) |
| Strata management fee (Schedule A + B) per lot | $320 | $280 → $300 → $320 (~7% pa) |
| Arrears as % of levies billed | 4% | 3% → 5% → 4% |
What this tells the committee:
The capital works fund is materially underfunded against its own plan. The plan recommends $1,200 per lot per year; the building is contributing $900. That is a $9,000 annual shortfall against a 30-lot scheme, or $90,000 over a decade — a special levy in waiting unless contributions are raised.
Admin fund growth is inflation-aligned at around 9 per cent. The dominant driver, insurance, is rising at 25 per cent per year — the committee should ask the broker whether this reflects market conditions or building-specific factors (sum insured, claims history, valuation vintage).
Strata management costs are tracking inflation, which is what good agency relationships look like. Arrears are below the 5 per cent healthy threshold, with a single year's spike traceable to one owner's circumstances.
The committee's appropriate response is not to protest the increases. It is to vote a levy increase that catches the capital works fund up to the plan, while engaging the broker on insurance and continuing to monitor the management fee trend.
There is no "the average building pays X" number that produces this analysis. The building's own data does.
When the answer is "we don't know"
Some buildings cannot run this analysis because the data does not exist. A scheme that:
- Does not have a 10-year capital works plan, or has one that has not been reviewed in five years
- Does not separate admin fund and capital works fund spending in the AGM pack
- Has incomplete arrears records
- Has not had a building valuation in the last five years
…cannot benchmark itself meaningfully. The honest answer to "are our levies appropriate" is "we don't know yet" — and the committee's first job is to gather the missing data, not to pick a benchmark out of the air.
This is a more useful starting point than a misleading comparison number. A committee that has identified the missing information has a productive next step: get the valuation, get the plan reviewed, get the arrears reconciled. From there, the methodology in this guide produces a defensible answer.
How UnitBuddy fits
UnitBuddy holds each building's six numbers. The financial dashboard separates admin and capital works fund flows, tracks year-on-year change automatically, and surfaces budget-vs-actual at category level. The capital works planning module supports the NSW standard form and lets the committee compare recommended versus actual contributions year by year. The compliance tracker holds the insurance valuation cycle and prompts when it is due for review.
This is methodology supported by tooling, which is the honest version of the levy-benchmark question. We cannot tell your committee what other buildings pay, because nobody reliably can. We can make sure your building's own data is available when the committee sits down to ask the question properly.
If your committee is preparing for an AGM and wants to walk in with a clear view of the six numbers, this is exactly what UnitBuddy is built for. Buildings on UnitBuddy can produce the worked-example table above — for their own scheme, with their own numbers — in an hour, not a quarter.
Further reading on each of the six numbers: the capital works plan red flags guide covers number 3 in detail, the strata insurance premiums guide covers number 4, and the how to read a strata management proposal guide covers number 5. The self-managed strata guide covers what changes if the committee decides the management line item is the one to renegotiate.
The committee that has run this analysis once will run it every year. The buildings that run it every year are the ones that do not have AGMs blindsided by a special levy. That is the entire point.