9.20 Annotation Mandamus is the appropriate action when a city council refuses either option of sub. (1) Mount Horeb Community Alert v. Village Board of Mt. Horeb, 2002 WI App 80, 252 Wis. 2d 713, 643 N.W.2d 186, 01-2217.

9.20 Annotation A proposed ordinance, initiated by a group of citizens, to require a village to hold a binding referendum prior to the start of construction on any new village building project requiring a capital expenditure of $1 million or more was an appropriate subject of direct legislation. Mount Horeb Community Alert v. Village Board of Mt. Horeb, 2003 WI 100, 263 Wis. 2d 544, 665 N.W.2d 229, 01-2217.

9.20 Annotation Section 893.80 (1) (b), which requires the filing of a notice of claim before an action may be commenced against a municipality, did not apply to an action for mandamus seeking to compel a city council to comply with this section. Oak Creek Citizen's Action Committee v. City of Oak Creek, 2007 WI App 196, 304 Wis. 2d 702; 738 N.W.2d 168, 06-2697.

9.20 Annotation A “concise statement" under sub. (6), properly construed, means a brief statement of the general purpose of the proposed ordinance. It is not required that the ballot must contain every essential element of the proposed ordinance. Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45, 332 Wis. 2d 459, 798 N.W.2d 287, 09-1874.

9.20 Annotation When an ordinance was never implemented because an injunction was issued and 2 years passed before the injunction was vacated, the 2-year time period excluded the time between the issuance of an injunction and its vacation. In that circumstance, returning the parties to the position they were in as of the date on which the temporary injunction is the only reasonable construction of sub. (8). Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 45, 332 Wis. 2d 459, 798 N.W.2d 287, 09-1874.