Before reviewing the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to address two procedural issues. First, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely. That decision was made prior to March 1993 since contracts were signed and construction began on or about March 23, 1993. In light of the fact that petitioner waited approximately three and one-half months before commencing this appeal and she offers no reason in her petition for the delay, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely. The appeal must also be dismissed for failure to join necessary parties.
Petitioner requests that construction of the transportation building be stopped.
If that relief was granted, it would impair the contracts between respondent and four separate contractors. Accordingly, the four contractors should have been joined as parties in this appeal and failure to do so requires dismissal of the petition. The appeal must also be dismissed on the merits. That initial proposal was rejected by the board. The proposition did not specify individual costs for the various buildings intended to be covered by the proposition.