[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-233007-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-233007-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","scenario-m-1-small-portfolio-provider","SCENARIO M-1 - SMALL PORTFOLIO PROVIDER","","SCENARIO M-1 evaluates the theoretical viability of a small mixed portfolio of four housing developments in a Lower Mainland municipality as existing operating agreements expire between 2021 and 2025. It reviews baseline rents, operating costs, replacement reserve allocations, and net operating income outcomes, contrasting projects with positive NOI against those with negative NOI under simplified subsidy and mortgage assumptions. Using the simplified Assessment Tool, it presents an overall assessment matrix and highlights how reserve allocations and expenditure realignment affect cash flow sufficiency and long-term maintenance.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/","Presentations",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/scenario-m-1-small-portfolio-provider/233007/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/scenario-m-1-small-portfolio-provider/233007.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Dipper","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-09-10",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What portfolio scope does Scenario M-1 cover?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Scenario M-1 covers a small portfolio totaling 199 units across four developments, including three family-oriented row developments and one seniors’ tower, with agreements expiring between 2021 and 2025.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How is viability assessed in Scenario M-1?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Viability is assessed using baseline data for rents, operating costs, and replacement reserve allocations, focusing on net operating income after replacement reserve, and then applying the simplified Assessment Tool to project outcomes at expiry.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why do some projects show negative cash flow at expiry?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Negative cash flow arises largely from high annual capital reserve allocations, which reduce NOI even when reserves are comparatively solid; lowering allocations is identified as the practical way to return operations to a positive position.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},233007,1791346309,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,97,102,107,112,117,122],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":98,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":103,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":104,"show_sort_weight":105,"slug":106},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":108,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":109,"show_sort_weight":110,"slug":111},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":113,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":114,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":85,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":30},1374404997633,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","M-1  \nSCENARIO M-1 SMALL PORTFOLIO PROVIDER  \nPrepared for BC Non-Profit Housing Association and BC Housing  \nBy Steve Pomeroy  \nFocus Consulting Inc.  \nJULY, 2016  \n(Users should first read “Introduction to scenarios” document, which describes a range of scenarios and methodology used to create them. )  \nSCENARIO M1 – SMALL PORTFOLIO PROVIDER  \nScenario Highlights:  \n􀁸 This small portfolio has two viable projects and two with small operating deficits  \n􀁸 Capital reserves on two projects are low but can be easily offset by higher contributions and reserves on two other projects  \nOptions  \n􀁸 Cross subsidization across projects can help address deficits but this action alone is insufficient Some realignment of expenditures to reduce reserve allocations is necessary  \n􀁸 Rents should be gradually increased on one project to erase its deficit  \nProject/Portfolio Description  \nThis is a small portfolio in a Lower Mainland municipality. The portfolio totals 199 units in four separate developments, including three families oriented row developments and a senior’s tower. All were built in the late 80’s –mid 1990’s and reach the end of agreements between 2021-2025.  \nStep A of the EOA Planning Guide recommends that societies carefully review the project operating agreement to understand the conditions in the agreement. This example includes two unilateral federal projects that receive CMHC 2% mortgage write down subsidy, while the later two projects receive full subsidy to cover operating losses.  \nCurrent theoretical viability  \nTo avoid assumptions on inflation of rent and operating costs, the first assessment examines the theoretical outcome that would exist today if all subsidy and all mortgage payments are ignored.  \nThe following table summarizes the base line rents, operating costs and capital reserves as reported in latest financial statements. For ease of reference these are shown on a per unit basis. The key variable for viability is the net operating income (NOI):  \n|  | Key Baseline Data (per unit) |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  | Per unit/month |  |  |  | Annual (per unit) |  |  |\n|  | Ave\u003Cbr>rent | Average Operating costs (excl RR) | Replacement\u003Cbr>Reserve (RR) Allocation | Net Operating Income after RR | RR alloc\u003Cbr>per\u003Cbr>unit | NOI\u003Cbr>after RR | RR\u003Cbr>Balance\u003Cbr>per unit today |\n| M1-A | $1,095 | $742 | $98 | $255 | $1,175 | $3,058 | -$945 |\n| M1-B | $866 | $547 | $95 | $225 | $1,140 | $2,696 | $3,450 |\n| M1-C | $403 | $349 | $129 | -$75 | $1,551 | -$903 | $4,457 |\n| M1-D | $539 | $339 | $229 | -$29 | $2,744 | -$346 | $5,396 |\n\nThe earlier two projects were built as income mixed projects with only a small percentage of units  \nas RGI and consequently generate strong rental revenues (together approximating $1,000 unit/month) and positive NOI. The later two projects are 100% RGI and consequently have lower revenues, which in the absence of subsidy would generate negative NOI.  \nAll make sizeable contributions to capital reserves on an annual basis and all but one (M1-A) have a small a modest reserve account.  \nExpected situation at Expiry of Operating Agreement  \nAs suggested in Step B of the EOA Planning Guide, this scenario uses the simplified Assessment Tool (SAT), which is available on the BCNPHA and BC Housing websites or through link on page 7 of the guide.  \nAfter inputting base data into the SAT the tool generates a series of outputs based on two viability tests and an assessment of whether capital reserves and ongoing contributions are sufficient to enable the society to continue to maintain the property in sound condition. Building from the base data, the SAT projects viability and adequacy of capital replacement reserves (using a proxy threshold test) to assess the situation at expiry. The overall result is displayed in the following overall assessment matrix.  \nAs shown in Figure 1 the projects fall into two parts of the assessment matrix: two are viable with sufficie","cbCaiht40YGgcZhv","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiht40YGgcZhv","pdf",493491,7,"English","# Scenario Highlights\n## Options\n# Project/Portfolio Description\n## Current theoretical viability\n## Expected situation at expiry of operating agreement\n## Test 2 (Cash at Expiry)\n# Exploring capital adequacy","[{\"question\":\"What portfolio scope does Scenario M-1 cover?\",\"answer\":\"Scenario M-1 covers a small portfolio totaling 199 units across four developments, including three family-oriented row developments and one seniors’ tower, with agreements expiring between 2021 and 2025.\"},{\"question\":\"How is viability assessed in Scenario M-1?\",\"answer\":\"Viability is assessed using baseline data for rents, operating costs, and replacement reserve allocations, focusing on net operating income after replacement reserve, and then applying the simplified Assessment Tool to project outcomes at expiry.\"},{\"question\":\"Why do some projects show negative cash flow at expiry?\",\"answer\":\"Negative cash flow arises largely from high annual capital reserve allocations, which reduce NOI even when reserves are comparatively solid; lowering allocations is identified as the practical way to return operations to a positive position.\"}]","SCENARIO M-1 - SMALL PORTFOLIO PROVIDER | PDF",1789075050]