Note that the 2000-2001 budget lists only the UVA academic division, while p. 1 of the 2011-2012 budget includes the UVA medical center. The academic division is broken down on p. 15 of that budget. Thus the pie charts on p. 1 of the first pdf correspond to the pie charts on p. 15 of the second.
At UVA, sponsored programs (i.e. research grants) make up only a quarter of the budget. Tuition and fees and state appropriations make up almost half. From 2001 to 2012, sponsored program revenues are up 60%, but not nearly enough to cover the 80% increase in expenditures. The other revenue sources haven't kept pace with spending growth either. Of the $590m in additional spending, $276m (or about half) has been supported by tuition increases.
Another way to look at it is that if spending had kept pace with inflation (2.5%) and enrollment growth (0.7%), tuition could have been easily held at 2001 levels. Or, alternatively, had tuition revenues increased to track inflation and enrollment growth, university expenditures could have increased a more modest 50% given the growth in other sources of funding, rather than 80% which was achieved by almost tripling tuition.
I'd be interested in what proportion of that is spent on education, because sponsored research is sort of its own (problematic) can of worms. When sponsored program revenues are up by 60%, for example, that almost requires that expenditures go up by 60-80%, because those programs generally come with quite strict conditions on spending the money expeditiously, and often specify exactly how to spend it (this is particularly common with DARPA grants, which are extremely front-loaded and micromanaged). In addition, these grants often come with some co-funding requirement on the part of the university, both explicitly and in terms of "upgrading facilities", though some of that is then taken back again by the university in overhead charges.
UVa, like most research universities, has been quite aggressive in trying to "encourage" faculty to get more grants. If that's successful, overall spending must of course increase proportionately, because the grant requires the recipient to ramp up hiring of program personnel. If that's not a goal, then the university should de-prioritize or even discourage grants, because they mandate spending increases.
A different angle would be to look at breakdowns by department. Which departments have gotten more expensive? My guess is that, as this is likely tied to grant-funded research, it's mostly STEM departments, not the "marginal" humanities.
As I said, sponsored programs only make up a quarter of UVA's budget. It's not a heavy science/tech school where most faculty salaries are funded by research grants. A 60% increase in sponsored programs revenue would imply a 15% increase in overall expenditures.
Half the 80% increase in expenditures was funded by A tripling of tuition. This is not a situation where expenditure increases are being funded mostly by grants.
Also, do you have a source for the 80% growth?