Petitioner states that his appeal is timely because respondent board did not take action on the funding of the fire escape project until February 8, 2000. I do not find this excuse acceptable with respect to the challenge to the procedures that the district used to submit the construction project to district voters. To the extent that petitioner is claiming such procedural defects, the appeal should have been commenced within 30 days of the budget vote and is untimely. However, petitioner's claims relating to the cost of the project, including the amount stated in the line item appropriation, are timely. Petitioner commenced this appeal within 30 days of February 8, 2000.
Respondents claim that petitioner failed to join a necessary party.
Clearly, the rights of Duguid would be affected by a determination in favor of petitioner. Even if this appeal were not dismissed on procedural grounds, it would be dismissed on the merits. Petitioner vaguely alleges that respondents failed to properly submit the construction project to district voters on May 18, 1999. Petitioner has, likewise, failed to establish in the record before me that respondents improperly submitted the project to district voters. After the voters approved the project, it was competitively bid as required by General Municipal Law 103.