Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Higher Education Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Radford officials present FY‑26 budget scenarios, flag carryforward aid and tuition choices

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Visitors of Radford University heard a public budget briefing that outlined revenue sources, midyear adjustments and scenario planning for fiscal year 2026.

The Board of Visitors of Radford University heard a public budget briefing that outlined revenue sources, midyear adjustments and scenario planning for fiscal year 2026.

Vice President Hoover, speaking as the university’s finance lead, told the board that the university’s primary revenues are state general fund appropriations and tuition and fees, roughly a 60/40 split, and that the institution is tracking an adjusted FY‑25 operating outlook (adjusted budget of about $286 million versus projected expenses of about $291 million) before scenario planning for FY‑26. “Our primary source of revenue, though, is general fund and tuition and fees, to the tune of about 60% from general fund and 40% from tuition and fees,” Vice President Hoover said.

The presentation noted a $6.7 million carryforward in student financial assistance that was received too late to be spent in the prior academic year and is being deployed in the current year. Hoover said auxiliary adjustments include about $2.2 million for one‑time improvements to the Dedmon facility (new court, video boards and floor work).

Why it matters: the administration presented multiple tuition and enrollment scenarios that will inform the board’s recommendation on tuition and fees in March and final FY‑26 approval by May 1. The scenarios show that modest in‑state tuition increases and modest enrollment growth materially affect the bottom line; a flat enrollment, 0% in‑state increase scenario produced a projected deficit in the modeling.

Hoover walked the board through four modeled scenarios—growth and flat enrollment, each paired with a 0% or 2% in‑state tuition assumption. The models include a 4% increase in out‑of‑state undergraduate tuition (the university uses a “full cost” policy for out‑of‑state rates). In the growth model, Hoover said a 2% in‑state increase roughly balances the budget in the scenarios shown; the flat‑enrollment, 0% scenario showed a projected shortfall (about $732,000 in the presentation’s example). “These are not proposals for a budget. These are just showing some what‑ifs,” Hoover said.

Board members pressed for detail on assumptions. Rector Smith noted the governor’s guidance that institutions keep in‑state tuition increases near or below 2.5%, and Hoover said the administration modeled a 2% in‑state increase because the governor has urged a 2.5% cap. The administration also noted the conference report (state budget) may include one‑time “affordable access” funding and nursing support; Hoover cautioned that much of the newly proposed higher‑education funding is one‑time only and should not be treated as recurring base funding.

Other details provided: the administration reported an auxiliary planning range for housing and dining rate increases of roughly 4–8% while work continues on auxiliary budgets; the current out‑of‑state student share is small (reported as about 8%); and the administration presented a preliminary estimate that moving a banded tuition limit from 16 to 17 credit hours would reduce revenue by about $450,000 (moving to 18 credits would be slightly less). Hoover said those banding analyses will be refined and returned to the board.

Next steps: the administration will take public comment at a March public comment presentation, the Business Affairs and Audit Committee plans to recommend tuition and fees at its March 20 meeting, and the university aims to finalize the FY‑26 budget by May 1. “When we come back to the board in March, we will have a proposal for you to consider,” Hoover said.

The presentation included multiple supporting slides on mandatory cost pressures the university must absorb (salary and benefits, utilities, central systems), the state economic outlook, and the distinctions between recurring base funding and one‑time allocations.

Ending: Trustees thanked Hoover and his staff for the presentation and asked for further enrollment and pricing sensitivity analysis to inform the board’s eventual tuition and fee recommendation.