By Miki Mullor 

Facing questions from citizens and the Hideout Comment, Town of Hideout’s Mayor, Phil Rubin, and the Town Engineer Timm Dixon, were unable to support with facts their action to raise water meter fees on new residents by more than 450%. The March 2022 fee hike, approved by the Town’s council, may be violating Utah State law, which protects residents against unreasonable fee hikes.  

The fee hike was initiated by Dixon, who relied on misinformation to justify it, and supported by Rubin, who made questionable public statements on the validity of the fee hike. 

The Town was expected to gain about $445,000 a year from the hike, per the Town’s FY23 budget.  Utah law prohibits cities from generating profits from water connection fees. 

Hasty, no-discussion approval of a 450% fee hike  

Cities and towns regularly adopt a master fee schedule to authorize the collection of fees from citizens for government services. 

• Town of Hideout Fee and Rates Schedule 

Item 6.2 of schedule, Water Connection Fees, sets the fee new homeowners must pay the Town in order to have their new home connected to the water system.  The fee covers the cost of a water meter and its installation and inspection by the Town. 

In March 2022, the Town’s council voted 3-0 on Rubin’s proposal to increase the water connection fees on new residents: 

(Source: Town of Hideout Resolution #2022-R-03)

During the March 10, 2022, council meeting, Rubin highlighted the increase in the water connection fee because of the use of smart meters, which allow remote reading of water consumption using a wireless network and therefore detect leaks sooner.  When a voice could be heard on the meeting’s video wanting to ask a question about the water meter fee Rubin quickly shut it down: 

Voice 1: would you like me to talk about that really quick.

Rubin: no, I just talked about it.

Voice 1: sounds good, [I just didn’t], I just wanted to ask…

Rubin: No, I talked about it, we’re going to higher tech meters which are smarter smart meters and they’re going to do a better job for us and it’s the right thing to do so they cost more money.

(Source: Video of Hideout Council meeting, 3/1/2022, at 3:12:41) 

No cost data was provided to the council or the public ahead of the hike’s approval. 

Misinformation by the Town Engineer 

Emails obtained through a GRAMA request show a proposal from Dixon to Rubin to hike the water connection fees based on the high cost of the smart meters and by what Heber City charges for connection fees.  

As the record shows, Dixon misrepresented both numbers by multiple factors. 

In a February 28, 2022, email Dixon sent to Rubin, but not to the Town’s council, he stated that Heber City charges $3000 for a 1” and $4,500 for a 1.5” smart water meter including inspection and installation, and added for justification that: 

“The base cost for just meter’s alone and setters are as follows: 1” $1460,  1-1/2” $2765 …” writes Dixon,  “I would like to propose the same costs as Heber City does for our meter prices. This will handle Stephen’s time for inspections and installations.”

[1” and 1-½” refers to the size of water pipe]

Several hours later Rubin replies: “I support your proposal.”

Heber City does not charge $3,000 and  $4,500 for installation of  smart meters. In its current fee schedule, Heber City charges $699.78 and $1,662.49 for Water Meter/Transponder and Installation.  

When the Comment asked for the source of his information,  Dixon claimed that Heber City’s rate was different: 

“When the email was written, Heber was using a different fee schedule, which you can source from their code,” wrote Dixon in a June 11 email to The Comment.

Indeed it was different. It was even lower at $608.50 and $1,587.03 compared to the $3,000 and $4,500 Dixon misrepresented those to Rubin.  

When presented with Heber City’s relevant fee schedule contradicting the information he gave Rubin, Dixon did not reply any further. 

Cost of meters also misinformation 

The other piece of information in Dixon’s proposal, the base cost of smart meters, is also inconsistent with Hideout’s own records. Dixon wrote in his email to Rubin:

(Source: 2/28/2022 email from Timm Dixon to Phil Rubin)

Dixon claimed the cost of a 1” smart meter is $1,460, but a January 2022 invoice for 22 water meters obtained from Hideout, two months before Dixon made his proposal, show the cost to be $365, 75% lower from what Dixon quoted Rubin. 

(Source: Hideout invoice #25234)

A later invoice, from March 2022, which shows the same cost for smart meters, also seem to bare the approvals by the initials “TD”, possibly Dixon’s initials:

(Source: Hideout invoice #25442)

Another invoice obtained from Hideout, also bearing the approval of “TD”, shows the cost of a 1.5” smart meter is $830, 70% lower than $2,765, the base cost of a 1.5” meter Dixon claimed as justification for hiking the water connection fee. 

(Source: Hideout invoice #25840)

Dixon did not reply to a request for comment about the true cost of the meters.

Citizen raises questions, Rubin denies a markup 

In the March 9, 2023, council meeting, Ed O’Rourke, a lot owner in Soaring Hawk, raised a question to Rubin: 

“I would like to know more about the decision to pass on a water meter expense to the community at four times the prior cost if all things are relatively equal to what the performance of that water meter does.”

To that, Rubin replied that the new meters are significantly more expensive because “they provide automated uh meter reading so they’re electronic and can be read uh without having to open each manhole.”

O’Rourke was concerned whether Hideout marks up the cost of the meters to fund other items. 

Rubin explained it’s not allowed and denied Hideout is doing that:

“A fee in our schedules are only for that particular item we’re not moving funds from one pile to another that’s not allowed and we don’t do that.”

At that point, Dixon chimed in: 

“Polly [Town Attorney] and myself, we actually compared water meter costs in other cities in Heber and some other places nearby and this is the we’re really close to what other cities and towns are charging for installation and meter cost for the same type of system.”

(Source: 3/9/23 council meeting at 11:02)

O’Rourke wasn’t satisfied and followed up with another comment during the 4/13/23 council meeting, in which he expressed disappointment for not receiving a response to a letter he sent asking basic information about the costs of the water meters:

“I have to express disappointment that I’ve babysat a response to that letter for the full four weeks looking forward to what I think is just basic information… I come out of private sector I think you [Rubin] come out of supply chain too in in your prior life, I know in my world this data just sits in a file, it was information that was used to present to the council to yourself to make a decision and vote so I view this as very suspect why it would take a month to reply to some very basic questions…”, said O’Rourke in front of council, “You were kind enough 10 days ago to say it’s in legal review which surprised me because this is again basic information. why anything would need to go into legal review is beyond me.”

Rubin did not address the question directly. 

(Source: 4/13/23 council meeting at 4:05) 

Inadvertent disclosure of the real meter cost

A month later, during a public budget meeting, Katie Shepley, a member of the Economic Development Committee, who helps with Town’s budget, spoke about a project to upgrade 100 water meters to smart meters at a cost of $500 each, at which the Rubin interrupted her: “You’re wrong on the price. We’ve done an analysis of that price and that’s not what the price is,” said Rubin. 

(Source: council meeting 5/11/23 at 55:20) 

The Comment submitted a GRAMA request for the price analysis Rubin mentioned. In return, the Town produced an email Rubin sent Shepley, telling her that “When you say in the meeting that the meters cost $500, it gets residents quite upset as we charge more than $500. So while what you state is correct, there is more there than the meter cost. We need to be sensitive when we discuss this at the budget.”

But the email failed to show any analysis of costs; it only listed line items of related costs, without dollar amounts.  The Town was unable to produce any analysis of costs related to water meters. 

The items Rubin enumerated, without dollar amounts, included costs of the electronic meter, cellular service for the meter, software setup fee, customer monitoring service portal,  billing integration, monthly service pricing per meter, cost of the fitting, cost of the meter insulation foam and lids and labor.

Analysis of costs does not support the fee hike 

The Comment further requested invoices to show dollar amounts for each item, which totaled at $600 for a 1” meter (charged at $3,000 to residents) and $1,050 for a 1 1/2 “ meter (charged at $4,500 to residents) representing a 500% and 450% markup respectively, a markup Rubin denied in public. 

Our analysis assumes a 5 hours labor time at $30 per hour, which represents the hourly rate of the Town’s public works water maintenance employee.  The analysis excluded the one-time $5,200 and $1,900 charges the Town incurred for acquiring a billing software for the entire Town’s use, a charge that is not related to connecting a water meter. 

Utah state law prohibits towns from charging residents a connection fee that exceeds reasonable costs, essentially preventing towns from increasing fees to generate profits. 

Utah State Code 10-9a-510 (3) states: 

A municipality may not impose or collect a hookup fee that exceeds the reasonable cost of installing and inspecting the pipe, line, meter, and appurtenance to connect to the municipal water, sewer, storm water, power, or other utility system.

(5) subsection of the same statute provides that a Town must provide an itemized fee statement that includes:  

• for each fee, any studies, reports, or methods relied upon by the municipality to create the calculation method described 
• an accounting of each fee paid
• how each fee will be distributed; and
• information on filing a fee appeal through the process

Rubin did not respond to a request for comments to this story. 

---