In Ebensburg v. Prevailing Wage Appeal Board, 893 A.2d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) the Borough of Ebensburg undertook a project to demolish and reconstruct sidewalk and curbing along a street at an estimated cost in excess of the statutory requirement of $ 25,000, using public funds.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at issue in that controversy defined "maintenance under the Prevailing Wage Act (Act) as replacement of the curb in kind but also defined installation of new curb as not maintenance." Id.
The MOU did not cover the sidewalks.
This Court held that the Borough could not rely on the MOU because "it should have been apparent to Ebensburg that the MOU was a separate understanding between two Commonwealth agencies attempting to interpret a statute . . . that . . . would not be binding in Court as to a third party. . . ." Id. at 185, fn.4.