availability of funds can distort the priority ranks. As Howard observes, “ Despite the fact that how a project is financed does not change the need for it, there is a strong tendency for differences in the availability of capital outlay funds to skew priority decisions. The appropriate approach in establishing final priorities should involve a general comparison of the cost of the project with the project’s return to the community------- the money’s source doesn’t matter in that comparison. Some projects can get favored treatment, however, because earmarked funds are available (a special tax creates a fund pool that can be spent only on one class of project), because they produce revenue that can be pledged to repayment of revenue bonds without direct-tax burden or the need to satisfy restrictions placed on general debt, or because federal or state assistance is available for particular projects. The purpose of many grants is to bend local priorities, so that influence is excusable. The other influences, however, are inappropriate and show why most analysis oppose such fiscal constraints.