David81, just note that I only cited Heckler's campaign in one context; it didn't sustain or build any capital giving muscle. In fact it decreased markedly in 2008-2021 during a market boom and growth in number of alumni hitting prime giving years. It's possible that donors to endowment vs capital might be slightly different populations.
The Forever Valpo campaign's sub-section goals were posted on the VU website during the campaign. It ultimately counted gifts over a full 10 years. I am ballparking from memory, but I bet I can find numbers in a prior post.
Exactly $20M given to building projects (chapel and welcome center)
Approx. $70M+ in gifts cumulatively over 10 years at a rate VU typically receives gifts (no campaign per se)
Approx. $90M+ estate promises (received at donor death)
Approx. $70M-90M in cash gifts/pledges to endowment
If a $70-90m range is fair, then a 4% payout from them yields $2.8M to $3.6M in new VU income. Naturally the estates will yield a similar addition over time as the donors age. Those are good and permanent legacies for Heckler.
But Heckler's legacy also includes large building debts and structural budget deficits. By contrast, Harre in his last 10 years, borrowed ZERO to complete $115M+ in buildings. He left a balanced budget for Heckler.
Swimming is killing it right now in valpo day with total participants with bowling folowing close behind. Football is suprisingly in third despite the coaching change and the love the donor base had for the previous coach. Men's basketball isn't even in the top 5, and hasn't seen a penny in donations as of 1:10 in the afternoon.
@rezynezy It must have been a glitch or was the challenges page because I know that basketball had at least over 1k at that time (plus I know that I donated before then). Seems like teams with recent success are performing well (swimming, golf, bowling, etc.).
@david81 - so in other words, you were opposed to the art sale?
Let's just say it was not handled well by the university leadership. First, they pitched it as an immediate funding need that had to be met by the next incoming class, which turned out not to be true. Second, they treated long-time, devoted members of the VU community who opposed the sale very shabbily. Third, while they were fighting this tooth and nail, they apparently weren't doing a lot of major fundraising from other sources, which could've identified possible donors interested in a naming-level gift. In terms of the bad feelings it created, this was not Padilla's and the board's finest hour.
In any event, mining your art museum for its most valuable pieces to sell off for capital improvements is a poor substitute for fundraising. Rather, it suggests desperation.
You would think that with the amount of money that some of our basketball alumni have made in their professional careers, that they would pull in a lot more alumni support. Is that a matter of the program not keeping in touch with those folks?
As to the Valpo Day fundraising, the leaderboard shows how many participants have donated on the day, not the total amount of donations. The amounts listed on the leaderboard are "bonus dollars" for their respective sport, organization or unit.
I'm guessing that over the year, total donation dollars go toward MBB or Football rather than Swimming, and I think the Valpo Fund has an annual goal of something like $2M.
That said, kudos to Swimming for 'making a big splash' for the large number of Valpo Day donations.
I am a bit disappointed that there are so few crowdfunding projects. There are only three, whereas there were typically 6-10 in prior years.
David81, just note that I only cited Heckler's campaign in one context; it didn't sustain or build any capital giving muscle. In fact it decreased markedly in 2008-2021 during a market boom and growth in number of alumni hitting prime giving years. It's possible that donors to endowment vs capital might be slightly different populations.
The Forever Valpo campaign's sub-section goals were posted on the VU website during the campaign. It ultimately counted gifts over a full 10 years. I am ballparking from memory, but I bet I can find numbers in a prior post.
Exactly $20M given to building projects (chapel and welcome center)
Approx. $70M+ in gifts cumulatively over 10 years at a rate VU typically receives gifts (no campaign per se)
Approx. $90M+ estate promises (received at donor death)
Approx. $70M-90M in cash gifts/pledges to endowment
If a $70-90m range is fair, then a 4% payout from them yields $2.8M to $3.6M in new VU income. Naturally the estates will yield a similar addition over time as the donors age. Those are good and permanent legacies for Heckler.
But Heckler's legacy also includes large building debts and structural budget deficits. By contrast, Harre in his last 10 years, borrowed ZERO to complete $115M+ in buildings. He left a balanced budget for Heckler.
We may regard building debt differently. Though not ideal, it is common practice these days for non-rich universities to borrow for those purposes. Unless a naming gift can be secured, it’s often the only viable option. And at Valpo, the need for new and renovated buildings has been underscored by decades upon decades of deferred maintenance and active use of aging structures that were crumbling even during my student days.
Harre led VU during one of its most successful chapters. On just about every front, things were clicking. Harre played a major role in that, while also benefiting from fortunate timing. Heckler’s legacy is not as glowing, but he also began his tenure as higher ed was confronted by the brutal, lasting effects of the Great Recession and had to bring home the Forever Valpo campaign as the pandemic arrived.
Looking back, the recession, the pandemic, and changing student demographics combined to bring into sharp relief the fault lines of VU’s financial and institutional vulnerabilities.
@vu84v2 They seem to have replaced the crowdfunding with the these challenge events. I wondered about that to as I thought those would be good for younger alumni to participate in but it seems like the challenges get more engagement overall from both those trying to raise money and those giving. I am sad the softball gift didn't seem to get matched unless they had a larger donor in reserve to help with that if it didn't meet the goal
Looking back, the recession, the pandemic, and changing student demographics combined to bring into sharp relief the fault lines of VU’s financial and institutional vulnerabilities.
One thing I've asked some people that I know who have worked there over the years is that they said Valpo's tendency to run itself in a frugal manner as far as not repairing buildings, not investing, and not actively really seeking community and federal support caught up with them during all off these events. There was an assumption that Valpo would always be able to do more with less or achieve past it's limitations and that led to lots of things "coming due" at once.
One thing I've asked some people that I know who have worked there over the years is that they said Valpo's tendency to run itself in a frugal manner as far as not repairing buildings, not investing, and not actively really seeking community and federal support caught up with them during all off these events. There was an assumption that Valpo would always be able to do more with less or achieve past it's limitations and that led to lots of things "coming due" at once.
I agree that lots of things are coming due at once. Regarding the buildings, the problem is that under the Heckler administration, the buildings were mostly done with debt which was mostly avoided under the Harre years.
As far as I can tell, the main building projects under Heckler were the 2011 Arts&Sciences Building Addition, 2011 Fites Engineering Addition, 2014 Beacon Hall, and 2017 Center for the Sciences. During this time, the main borrowings were for $42M in 2014 (current balance of $42M) and another $40.6M (current balance of $36.7M) in 2017. This roughly aligns with the two most expensive new buildings. There also is a revenue bond of $17.3M from 2021, though that may have re-financed some prior loans. So, from a buildings perspective, the University did go ahead and repair or replace quite a few key buildings, yet did so by bringing on quite a bit of new debt. The other big part of the current debt are notes and lines of credit (approximately $15M).
All in, as of June 2024, VU has $131.7M in debt (unfortunately most of the 2014 and 2017 remains); VU paid out $5.3M in interest over the previous year. The consequence is that VU has little room to take on new debt and the interest charges are substantial drag on the annual budget.
Great review of key details. .
Just a footnote re Engineering addition, Harre and Fites raised the funding WITH NO DEBT per usual again by Harre. But of course Heckler was right there for the victory lap in 2011.
So maybe Heckler built ALL the buildings of 2013-2020 with massive mortgages that are now being re-financed? Obviously they bought way too much house for their income level. And now the income is way down.
One thing I've asked some people that I know who have worked there over the years is that they said Valpo's tendency to run itself in a frugal manner as far as not repairing buildings, not investing, and not actively really seeking community and federal support caught up with them during all off these events. There was an assumption that Valpo would always be able to do more with less or achieve past it's limitations and that led to lots of things "coming due" at once.
I agree that lots of things are coming due at once. Regarding the buildings, the problem is that under the Heckler administration, the buildings were mostly done with debt which was mostly avoided under the Harre years.
As far as I can tell, the main building projects under Heckler were the 2011 Arts&Sciences Building Addition, 2011 Fites Engineering Addition, 2014 Beacon Hall, and 2017 Center for the Sciences. During this time, the main borrowings were for $42M in 2014 (current balance of $42M) and another $40.6M (current balance of $36.7M) in 2017. This roughly aligns with the two most expensive new buildings. There also is a revenue bond of $17.3M from 2021, though that may have re-financed some prior loans. So, from a buildings perspective, the University did go ahead and repair or replace quite a few key buildings, yet did so by bringing on quite a bit of new debt. The other big part of the current debt are notes and lines of credit (approximately $15M).
All in, as of June 2024, VU has $131.7M in debt (unfortunately most of the 2014 and 2017 remains); VU paid out $5.3M in interest over the previous year. The consequence is that VU has little room to take on new debt and the interest charges are substantial drag on the annual budget.
I'm trying not to sound dismissive about VU's overall debt service, but relative to comparable universities, roughly $132m is not over the top, especially for schools that may have financed 2-3 major buildings over the past decade or so.
The big frame of concern, as I see it, was raised by beacon92, that being VU's perennial attitude of frugality and slow start in doing big league (or at least bigger league) development work finally catching up to it when events beyond its control occurred.
To that I would add the current generation's expectations of fancier student housing accommodations and academic facilities. I admit that I struggle with such expectations, knowing they are adding mightily to the cost of higher education and -- for some students -- the debt service they carry at graduation and beyond.
