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. Here, the expenditure is for a second means of egress needed to meet the requirements of the State's Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. Such expenditure is necessary to preserve the safety of the district's staff who work in the building, and would constitute an ordinary contingent expense.
Petitioner alleges that the project was greatly enlarged prior to respondents' request for bids.
Petitioner has not established in the record before me that respondents enlarged this project or sought to use the funding for a purpose other than to construct a second means of egress from the second floor of the Wells Street administrative building. I have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.