Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Electrical Code topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Waupaca council adopts ordinance aligning commercial electrical inspections with state code

City of Waupaca Common Council · February 4, 2026
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 Waupaca Common Council approved Ordinance No. 02-2026 on Feb. 3, 2026, amending the city's electrician/electrical code to align with current state statute and the state building code; the measure passed on a 9-0 roll-call vote.

The Waupaca Common Council voted 9-0 on Feb. 3 to adopt Ordinance No. 02-2026, a second-reading change to chapter 16 of the city electrician/electrical code to bring local rules into alignment with state law.

"This was initiated based on feedback from the State Department of Safety and Professional Services during the city's renewal as a delegated municipality to perform commercial electrical inspections," said Josh Finch, city administrator. Finch said the ordinance updates references to the current state building code, removes a defunct local licensing requirement and eliminates local exceptions that the department determined were not permitted under state statute. He said the revision also requires that electrical-permit applications be submitted by a licensed master electrician rather than by property owners.

Councilmember Paul Hagen moved approval on second reading; Olson seconded. The clerk conducted a roll-call vote; the council recorded nine ayes and the motion carried. Those recorded as voting "aye" were Eric Olsen, Eric Halverson, Paul Mayo, Dave Peterson, Colin Dykstra, Dimitri Martin, Corey Nagel, Scott Perchatsky and Paul Hagen.

The change follows a state-level review tied to the city's delegated authority to perform commercial electrical inspections. The ordinance text, effective date and any required administrative steps were not specified during the public meeting.

No public testimony or amendments were recorded during the second-reading vote.