Heather Bell
RADFORD – The city’s budget for fiscal year 2026-27 has been approved, with increases to real estate taxes, and water and electric rates.
Radford City Council gave final approval to the $80,135,986 budget, with a $35,380,562 general fund, on Tuesday, April 28. The budget includes a two-cent increase in the real estate tax rate, from 82 cents per $100 in valuation, to 84 cents. It also includes a $3 increase in the water rate per 1,000 gallons, and a five percent increase in electric. It also includes cuts to expenses, most notably $1.7 million in cuts from decreased personnel, from 20.5 positions cut. The budget also includes a two percent cost of living wage increase for city employees.
Radford City Manager Todd Meredith said the balanced budget also prevents further erosion of fund balances (reserves) and includes no new debt.
“We built this budget on four values – effectiveness, efficiency, financial sustainability and maintaining city status,” he said. “The budget we are about to approve is aligned with those values.”
Council member Jessie Foster said that while she understands the financial strains of the citizens, she is worried the tax rates being approved do not do enough to prepare for the future.
“What this budget does not do is really reduce our transfers [from enterprise funds like electric and water/ wastewater to the general fund], it’s not making really any strong effort to restore our fund balances and deal with our infrastructure needs,” said Foster. “We’re either going to start dealing with this stuff preventatively or we’ll be in crisis mode, which is going to be more expensive.”
Vice Mayor Seth Gillespie said he doesn’t think anything could be done in one budget cycle to deal with those issues.
“I agree it’s a vulnerable place, but I don’t know other than something very, very drastic that there’s anything we could do tonight that would put us in a place that would prepare us for something catastrophic,” he said.
The tax rate ordinance passed with a four-to-one vote, with Foster voting no. The budget passed unanimously five to zero.
“I realize my stance is not popular,” Foster said. “I’m not trying to be popular, I’m trying to remain a city. From my own experience growing up in poverty, I understand what our households are going through. But my decision is based on trying to save money in the long term by not being absorbed into a county. So I still see it as being a cost saving measure, because we know the counties around us charge quite a bit more.”
