Waconia ballroom septic system is faulty - now what?

Carver County, after buying the Waconia ballroom relying on an inspector's report that it had an adequate septic system, now faces the prospect of spending up to $200,000 after a new inspection found that the system was faulty.

County Administrator Dave Hemze said the septic system does not pose an immediate health threat, and he is recommending that the county keep the building open for events and receptions while the septic system is converted to a holding tank that can be pumped out periodically.

The Carver County Board is expected to decide Wednesday what to do about the problem.

Longer term, he is suggesting that the commissioners consider whether to install a new septic system, which could cost $200,000.

"If it didn't pass, we are going to have to fix it -- do something with it," County Board Chair Gayle Degler said Monday.

The septic system's drain field does not have the required 3 feet of separation from the groundwater table beneath it, Robert Whitmyer of Matrix Soils and Systems Inc., reported last week.

His findings contradict an inspection report that had given the septic system a passing grade. It was provided by the former owners of the ballroom, and the county relied on it last year when it bought the ballroom parcel overlooking Lake Waconia for $2.5 million.

"It's not just a matter of us correcting an obviously failing septic system," Workman said. "This was a real estate deal that perhaps shouldn't have happened. We are going to have to get to the bottom of how this occurred. This was a coverup."

The county probably wouldn't have paid so much for the property and might not have decided to run it as a ballroom "if this system had been honestly inspected in the first place," Workman said. "It's polluting the groundwater, as I have said."

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recommended the new inspection after Workman sent the agency documents calling the first inspection into question. Workman said numbers in the original inspection "showed it failed" but the report "said it passed." The original inspector was "the same guy who installed [the septic system] in 1982."

Workman faulted other commissioners and the county staff for not wanting to consider "a whole car load of red flags that showed this was not a passing system. Nobody wanted to do anything. It's embarrassing."

Degler said the county would like to know why the two inspections conflict. When the county bought the parcel, "We had a compliance report that was issued by a licensed inspector." Hemze said he will recommend that the board ask the MPCA whether the first inspector met MPCA rules and regulations.

Clarence Manke, MPCA enforcement coordinator, said state statute requires that owners disclose what they know about a septic system before selling their property. It is a Carver County requirement -- not a state requirement -- that septic systems be checked by an inspector prior to properties changing hands, Manke said.

It was the county's choice to rely on the inspector hired by the people selling the property instead of hiring its own inspector, Manke said,

The original inspector based his report on drilled soil borings. The second inspector, who had a soil science background, dug a pit like a well shaft to look at the soil and measure the water table, Manke said.

The MPCA recommended another inspection because, "based on our evaluation of what was done in the first inspection, it was unclear what was going on at that site," Manke said.

The agency recommended someone with a soil science background because the ballroom site is "not a run-of-the-mill site," Manke said.