In Denbow v. Borough of Leetsdale, 556 Pa. 567, 729 A.2d 1113 (1999), the borough entered into a collective bargaining agreement with police officers covering the terms of employment, including wages, through 1994. In 1993, the borough council voted to amend the agreement and give certain officers pay raises in 1994. Subsequently, new council members voted to repudiate the amendment, and the borough refused to pay the approved increases. In response to a breach of contract action brought by the officers, the borough argued that the pay raises were invalid under Art. III, 26 and cited supporting case law. The officers did not dispute that the pay increases were extra compensation to public employees after a contract with those employees had been made. Rather, they cited case law for the proposition that the proscription in Art. III, 26 applied only to actions of the General Assembly, not to actions of local municipalities. Noting that neither side had presented decisions that were directly on point, our supreme court held that the principles embodied in Art. III, 26, circumscribing the General Assembly's authority, apply with equal force to municipalities.