@valpopal The amount raised was higher than that. If the school met their goal, then all $470,000 of “bonus funds” would be donated. I’m assuming those funds were some kind of corporate sponsorship because there were numerous companies on the promotional materials. There were also other challenges, donation matches, etc. that included more than just the $470,000. For example, athletics raised at least $100,000 that was separate from the bonus funds.
Yep. I correct my typo, which was a bit unclear because it was missing the word "bonus" and should have read: "As we have seen in other years, the university has announced it reached its 'goal,' and the total bonus amount raised was $470,000."
Ahh gotcha thanks for clarifying! I just got an email from Valpo and they said over $1.2 million. Not too bad imo.
Any successful fundraising in the midst of a very anxious economic situation is very good news.
Surprised no one posted this yet...this is not the news we needed...
Disgraceful to let this institution fall like this.
There are two ways to grow revenue. We need a competent enrollment leader. We need a competent development leader. And we need a competent president to hire both. I sincerely hope this president’s cabinet are polishing their resumes, because the new prez needs to clean house.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/05/13/valparaiso-university-art-sale/
This one is a freebie it seems.
As for a TLDR. The School is now looking to use the City (particularly the VEDC) as a conduit for future bonds. The way the article reads, this is likely an attempt to circumnavigate the hit to the junk rating from Moody's or an attempt to access bonds that were otherwise unavailable. Particularly that non-profits are required to go through government entities to secure general obligation bonds. GOBs are seemingly nice as any form of revenue can be used to pay them it seems. I don't know enough about them to give a reasonable answer however The reasoning for using the city seems to be that the survival of the school is ultimately a net positive for the city as it brings people into the city. The school expects to see 55 million of the 117 million. 15 will be used for infrastructure upgrades and the rest will be used to refinance/consolidate debt.
For all you "art buffs". The school was questioned as to why the sold of the artwork and did not seek a conduit for a bond from the city sooner. The claim from the Lawyer seems to be along the lines of that the school had a great asset on their hands, however that asset did nothing from an operational standpoint for the campus to run and a difficult decision was made
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/05/13/valparaiso-university-art-sale/
Another trash headline title…. Saying $117 is extremely misleading when it might not even get up to $55. Yeah it’s not great having to refi and everything else…. but if this goes through then almost 30M of renovations will be completed soon
Yes, newspapers need dramatic headlines and the art museum visual to grab eyes. Sadly,... the art museum gives national news outlets a paint-selling "villain" hook to make our failing finances more famous, prompting, "Oh yeah, the place that sold the paintings".
The board's original logic for selling them was indeed solid. So it's interesting that Moody's as a financial entity looks at the intangibles and made the paintings debacle a key issue in ratings. They perceive that it is a bright red flag of desperation to the public.
This article again raises concerns about truthfulness in past statements from the university administration.
The question by the Council reveals their skepticism shared by the faculty about the need to sell the artworks: “'If this was an option, can I ask why it wasn’t used instead of selling the artwork?' asked Councilwoman Emilie Hunt, D-At-large. The artwork was sold, Nie said, because university officials 'felt like we had a very great asset but it wasn’t doing the most from an operational capability for the campus to run. It was just a decision the university made.'" The answer that it was just a decision the university made seems to confirm the sale was not the necessity without any other viable option that Padilla repeatedly projected.
According to a university official, the article also reports: "The dorms, Brandt and Wehrenberg halls, are slated to have a gallery displaying lesser-known works of art from the Sloan Trust, which directly or indirectly provided the three paintings being sold off."
So, we were to believe VU supposedly was very concerned about the security of artworks within the walls of the museum, using that as an excuse for some of its controversial actions, but the university has no qualm about placing some Sloan Trust paintings on walls away from the museum's safety or direct oversight and in the highly vulnerable atmosphere of a student dorm!
This article again raises concerns about truthfulness in past statements from the university administration.
The question by the Council reveals their skepticism shared by the faculty about the need to sell the artworks: “'If this was an option, can I ask why it wasn’t used instead of selling the artwork?' asked Councilwoman Emilie Hunt, D-At-large. The artwork was sold, Nie said, because university officials 'felt like we had a very great asset but it wasn’t doing the most from an operational capability for the campus to run. It was just a decision the university made.'" The answer that it was just a decision the university made seems to confirm the sale was not the necessity without any other viable option that Padilla repeatedly projected.
According to a university official, the article also reports: "The dorms, Brandt and Wehrenberg halls, are slated to have a gallery displaying lesser-known works of art from the Sloan Trust, which directly or indirectly provided the three paintings being sold off."
So, we were to believe VU supposedly was very concerned about the security of artworks within the walls of the museum, using that as an excuse for some of its controversial actions, but the university has no qualm about placing some Sloan Trust paintings on walls away from the museum's safety or direct oversight and in the highly vulnerable atmosphere of a student dorm!
A dormitory is hardly a "vulnerable environment". The art museum was open to the public with a building that was open during business hours. A dorm room requires 1 or multiple forms of key card access in order to gain entrance into the building. Dormitories around the country display works of art as decor. Heck, most hotels do this as well. Surely if there was such a "safety concern" you wouldn't see this happen.
The school did have other options and Padilla outlined this during his tenure. The problem with those other options was that most of not all of them required the accumulation of more debt.
“People will say the No. 1 reason people don’t come to Valparaiso University is because of the housing,” Volpatti said. “All the other stuff is really good for us.”
I’m worried that the administration doesn’t understand the problems facing Valpo. And now they’re going to saddle Valpo with an additional $15 million in debt that the next President will have to deal with.
Also, why did we sell the paintings and incur the negative PR if we could have issued more bonds? Was was the value of the goodwill that we lost in that transaction?
So, we were to believe VU supposedly was very concerned about the security of artworks within the walls of the museum, using that as an excuse for some of its controversial actions, but the university has no qualm about placing some Sloan Trust paintings on walls away from the museum's safety or direct oversight and in the highly vulnerable atmosphere of a student dorm!
Come on pal. The concern was over 3 painting which apparently brought in $12 million dollars. There are plenty of pieces in the Art Gallery that are very attractive but maybe a value of $1000 or 2? Just a guess, but to compare to three sold to others to be used in dorm displays is pretty silly don't you think?
I looked at the actual resolution put forward to the City, which is available here: https://www.ci.valparaiso.in.us/DocumentCenter/View/11117/Ordinance-9-2025
Despite what was quoted in the articles, two things jumped out at me: 1) The resolution says that VU re-fund in whole or in part the 2014 IFA Revenue Bond ($42M), of which interest only has been paid so far. 2) Certain lines of credit ($15M) and term loan ($5M). (The loan values I just quoted were from the June 2024 audit report.) That represents $62M of the $117M resolution, just for refinancing present obligations.
Beyond this, there is much about the refinancing which we do not know. It may be that principal payments were due to begin on the 2014 loan, which would be an additional burden on VU's cash flow that would not be easily sustainable. For the lines of credit and term loan, it may be that the City loan may be much cheaper than the interest rate, or perhaps the terms required VU to maintain a certain credit rating which was recently cut to junk. No matter what, it says that VU could use the help from the city in securing its financial future.
As to the art sale, I get that it remains controversial. However, $12M of art insured at 1% of its value is $120,000 per year; possibly the cost is even more than 1%. In addition, $12M of additional borrowing costs $840,000 per year (at 7% interest). It probably came down to a choice of keeping the art, or selling the art to save $960,000 per year. Given VU's financial situation, it may have left the administration no choice.
This is just devastating. Section 6 in the purposes of this $117M bond issue borrows for operations and for expected debt in the future. Valpo95 fills in the gaps with the 2024 audit of the "2014 series."
6(e) obtains "working capital to fund current operations"
6(f) creates a debt service reserve fund. So VU anticipates a rolling debt snowball.
Sadly we are looking at a VU closure in two years without a cash windfall or a big asset sale. Enrollment revenue can't grow more than $450k in fall 2025 and a cumulative $900k for fall 2026. And those would be VERY extreme targets (an increase of 150 per class and an extra dollar increment per kid of $3,000.) The math in the debt re-financing takes you past a $1M increase in debt service very easily.
This is just devastating. Section 6 in the purposes of this $117M bond issue borrows for operations and for expected debt in the future. Valpo95 fills in the gaps with the 2024 audit of the "2014 series."
6(e) obtains "working capital to fund current operations"
6(f) creates a debt service reserve fund. So VU anticipates a rolling debt snowball.
Sadly we are looking at a VU closure in two years without a cash windfall or a big asset sale. Enrollment revenue can't grow more than $450k in fall 2025 and a cumulative $900k for fall 2026. And those would be VERY extreme targets (an increase of 150 per class and an extra dollar increment per kid of $3,000.) The math in the debt re-financing takes you past a $1M increase in debt service very easily.
huh? 95 is just referring to the art sale with those figures.
To the person(s) still questioning whether selling that $15M painting was truly necessary, let me offer up a dose of reality:
Valpo has suffered appx $45M in operating losses over the past 5 years. It was reduced to junk bond credit status by Moody’s only a month ago. It needs an increase of roughly 450 students to just break even, which sounds nearly hopeless short of completely reinventing itself. So, does Valpo need $15M in revenue from that painting? The answer is obvious. Now, if only they can find another 10 such paintings hidden away somewhere…
