policy memorandum: policy methods to reduce alcohol ... · legal landscape and enforcement...

Photo from breathalyzeralcoholtester.com

Policy Memorandum:

Policy Methods to Reduce Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities

By Preston Evans

Abstract

In partial fulfillment for the requirements of the University of Denver’s Master of Public Policy (MPP)

degree.

This policy memo evaluates the effect of drunk driving on society, particularly

with regard to the number of lives lost due to alcohol-related driving fatalities, in the

state of Colorado. The memorandum begins with an assessment of Colorado’s current

problem, situation, and statutes; discusses measure of success in evaluating policy

outcomes; argues the necessity for policy action; and describes multiple policy-

oriented remedies to the problem. Approximately 150 individuals die each year in

Colorado due to alcohol-impaired driving (MADD). Implementing an increase in

LEAF funding (a fund into which every DUI offender pays) and thereby increasing

the number of sobriety checkpoints would save approximately 19 lives annually.

Lowering the BAC threshold for a DUI from .08% to .05% would save approximately

32 lives annually. Accounting for both quantitative factors and other noteworthy

evaluative factors, this memo finds that an increase in LEAF funding is the preferred

method of reducing alcohol-related driving fatalities.

Evans 1

Acknowledgements

This memorandum would not have been possible without the committed assistance of

many. I’d like to thank:

Robert Fusfeld, for continually making this document better through his cutting

insight and analytical skills; Andy Sherbo, for ensuring that every number that made

it into this document belonged in this document; Lapo Salucci, for his input in this

memo’s nascent stages; Debbie Gaylinn and Erin Dietrich, for providing

immeasurable administrative assistance; Lisa Evans, for fielding late-night, anxiety-

ridden phone calls; and Charlie Schmidt, for keeping me going.

Evans 2

Table of Contents

I.! Overview Introduction/Problem Definition………………………………………………..3 Problem History………………………………………………………………………..4 Measure of Success……………………………………………………………………6

II.! Background Legal Landscape and Enforcement Mechanisms…………………………..7

Offender Demographics…………………………………………………………….9 Stakeholders…………………………………………………………………………….11

III.! Policy Options Overview………………………………………………………………………………….11 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….12

Evaluative Factors…………………………………………………………………….13 Cost-Benefit Analysis………………………………………………………………..19

IV.! Conclusion CBA Results………………………………………………………………………….….28

Policy Suggestion……………………………………………………………………..29 Weaknesses, Limitations, and Extension Possibilities………………….30 Summary………………………………………………………………………………...31

V.! Works Cited…………………………………………………………………..……32 VI.! Appendix (CBA and Calculations) ……………………………………Attached

Evans 3

I.! Overview

Introduction/Problem Definition

This policy memo evaluates the effect of drunk driving on society, particularly

with regard to the number of lives lost due to alcohol-related driving fatalities, in the

state of Colorado. There are approximately 150 alcohol-related traffic fatalities annually

in Colorado, and this memo suggests two enforcement-oriented policy options for

reducing that statistic and its associated cost to society. I begin with an assessment of

DUI law and context in Colorado, discuss measure of success in evaluating policy

outcomes, and argue the necessity for policy action.

One policy option increases the fee that each DUI offender pays which funds

sobriety checkpoints.1 Another policy option reduces the BAC threshold for a DUI from

.08% to .05%. Both options are evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively for a sense of

their foreseeable effects.

Fatalities caused by alcohol-impaired driving present an undue burden to society,

both in dollars wasted and in lives lost, and policy measures that can rectify this issue by

saving lives should be considered and implemented.

Drunk driving as a policy issue could be addressed in three distinct policy arenas.

A public health-based approach to this problem might be to create more powerful

educative and rehabilitation services regarding alcohol-impaired driving. A criminally-

based approach might suggest implementing steeper or more specific mandatory

punishments, to further deter individuals from breaking the law. Rather than taking

either of these approaches, I have chosen to evaluate a set of enforcement-based

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!This!fund,!called!LEAF!(Law!Enforcement!Assistance!Fund),!is!discussed!in!detail!in!the!“Policy!

Options”!section.!

Evans 4

strategies for mitigating the issue of alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities. All three

approaches would likely lead to effective policy—this memo focuses on enforcement

mechanisms because I find it to be the most straightforward means of removing

dangerous drivers. Encouraging law enforcement to catch offenders before they have the

chance to cause a fatality, and providing jurisdictions with resources to do so, is

important in solving this issue largely because police officers are the individuals

responsible for removing dangerous drunk drivers from the roads.

Problem History

Every year in Colorado, there are approximately 150 deaths caused by alcohol-impaired

driving. This accounts

for an approximate 25

percent of all traffic-

related fatalities

(Figure 1)—in 2014,

this figure was 29.5%.

Driving while under the influence of alcohol is a reckless, dangerous, and societally

unacceptable act in which to engage; as such, we have seen policymakers in the last

several decades take concerted effort to reduce the frequency and severity of drunk

driving and, in doing so, prevent property damage and save lives (MADD). National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has tracked the statistics of alcohol-

related fatalities nationwide, and we see approximately a 40 percent decrease in total

alcohol-involved fatalities over the 18 years studied, as displayed in Figure 2.

Figure!1! I!

Evans 5

NHSTA reports “dramatic swings” from year to year regarding BAC’s relationship to

increased fatalities and serious injuries, which makes it impossible to assume a

continuous

correlation of

any significance.

However, as

NHTSA reports,

“For all crashes,

fatalities are

approximately

0.8 percent of

injured

survivors. This

rate quadruples

for crashes

involving

alcohol”

(NHSTA—

“Traffic Safety Facts”).

A gradual push away from drunk driving has occurred in the last century.* The

first anti-impaired-driving laws were passed in New York and California in 1910, which

made driving while intoxicated illegal, without naming criteria for intoxication. In 1938,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*!The below timeline comes from Adam K. Raymond’s article, “A Brief History of Drunk

Driving.”!

Figure 2 Source: NHSTA

Evans 6

a federal limit was developed—.15% was the first BAC to be commonly used, though it

was not federally mandated. However, the Breathalyzer (the standard tool used by

police for measuring BAC) was not developed for another 15 years, so on-scene

evaluations of alcohol-crashes were imprecise at best.

Efforts to stigmatize drunk driving ramped up in 1980 with the founding of

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD. In 1984, MADD successfully lobbied to get

the federally mandated minimum drinking age raised to 21 from 18. In 2000, Congress

mandated .08% as the new BAC threshold for a DUI, but most states had already

adopted this on their own due to an incentive program passed by Congress in 2002. In

both of these cases, the laws were passed federally, and in order for a state to receive

highway funding from the federal government, that state had to implement the same

policy (Raymond).MADD is in favor of further decreasing the BAC to .05%, as discussed

later in this paper.

MADD notes that Colorado “has been successful in reducing drunk driving

fatalities” and the organization “applauds Colorado on its continued efforts to keep the

roads safe and protect the public from drunk drivers” (MADD).

Measure of Success

In comparing policy alternatives, the most important measure of success will be a

reduction in the number of lives lost due to alcohol-impaired driving. One statistical life

is valued in 2015 dollars at $5.5 million (Boardman). Other factors, such as shifts in

funding mechanisms, are accounted for, but the factor of supreme importance will be

avoided fatalities.

Evans 7

A cost-benefit analysis is prepared in order to quantify elements of the policies,

and this is a necessary but insufficient evaluative tool. As such, policy measures will also

be evaluated in terms of their ability to remove dangerous drivers from the road, the

degree of culture change that would likely be associated with the policy, and the degree

of administrative skill necessary to implement the policy.

In terms of a market failure, the problem reduces to an excess of drunk drivers;

or, a deficit of alcohol-related driving fatality countermeasures. While there have been

programs implemented at every governmental level in order to diminish the frequency

of individuals driving while intoxicated, the incidents that still do occur place an

unacceptable and undue burden on society, and the implementation of a policy change

is necessary in order to account for this burden.

II.! Background

Legal Landscape and Enforcement Mechanisms

The Governor’s Highway Safety Association, a nonprofit organization advocating

for best practice in highway safety in all 50 states, provides a thorough comparison of

state-to-state DUI penalty and enforcement law.* Colorado is in the middle of the pack,

in terms of DUI law stringency. Colorado requires a three month suspended license after

a DUI (states range from 30 days to 6 months), but this sentence is reduced upon

installation of an ignition interlock device (GHSA). Some states require IIDs to be

installed for 3-12 months after receiving a DUI, and some do not—Colorado falls in the

middle with an average penalty and a highly incentivized IID installation program.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*!Full!comparison!available!at!http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/impaired_laws.html!!

Evans 8

While there has obviously been noteworthy progress in terms of limiting drunk-driving

fatalities, the problem is far from solved, as illustrated by the 150 annual fatalities in

Colorado. The below figure, figure 3, explains the exact penalties for DUI in Colorado as

of 2013. Note that a DUI is determined by a BAC of .08% or above, and a DWAI is the

lesser penalty for a BAC between .05% and .08%. Please note that Figure 3 summarizes

the law before the recent 2015 legislation, discussed here.

In August of 2015, a hotly-debated bill came into effect in Colorado that made a

fourth DUI in a lifetime a felony offense, rather than a misdemeanor (Frank). This

legislation had been backed by House Republicans advocating the necessity of

imprisoning multiple offenders—House Democrats had generally opposed the

legislation, citing the cost of keeping these individuals in prison and the importance of

having that money for other social programs (Zelinger). This change in penalization

Figure!3!

!

Source:!OLLS!

!

Evans 9

applies only to a very few individuals, those who receive a fourth DUI offense in a

lifetime (Frank).

Colorado’s current anti-drunk driving legislation package consists of The Heat Is

On campaign, the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF), ‘night on the town’ annual

discounts with partner companies Lyft and Uber, and ignition interlock devices for first-

time offenders (CDOT—“Alcohol and Impaired Driving”). The Heat Is On is largely an

awareness campaign, which couples with LEAF to advertise to Coloradoans the risks of

drunk driving, as well as broadcasting information regarding increased enforcement in

specific areas and time zones.

LEAF, a construct of great relevance to this memo, is funded via a $90 fee applied

to every DUI convict; approximately 60% of this money is then available for law

enforcement agencies across the state to increase police presence as they deem fit,

outside of or in addition to The Heat Is On campaign (Vaughan). The remaining 40

percent, as explained in the below CBA section, goes to CDOT to fund awareness and

education campaign (CDOT—“Joint Budget Committee…”).

In any discussion of Colorado legislation, TABOR is an important consideration.

TABOR, or the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, essentially limits general fund spending to the

amount spent last year plus population and inflation (Bell Policy Center). As such, both

below policy options create funding through mechanisms other than general fund

requests, as such requests are difficult to meet due to TABOR.

Offender Demographics

Evans 10

In Criminology and Public Policy, James C. Fell and Robert B. Voas corroborate

the above statistic of the fatality rate quadrupling for crashes in which alcohol is

involved versus non-alcohol crashes, writing “approximately one third of all offenders

arrested for DUI are repeat offenders…[and] drivers with a DUI offense are at

approximately four times the risk of being alcohol positive in a fatal crash” (Fell & Voas,

“Deterring…” 203).

Those committing alcohol-related fatalities, therefore, are generally those who

have a propensity to drive drunk. However, Fell and Voas argue “the ignition interlock

program in place in Colorado is designed only to decrease the number of repeat

offenders” (Fell & Voas, “Deterring…” 201). These repeat offenders constitute

approximately one-third of all DUIs—however, programs that target them “can only

prevent those annual 300,000 individuals from recidivism; therefore, programs are

preferable which generally deter some portion of the current 46,000,000 drivers from

driving after drinking, [as] it most certainly will have a greater effect on the problem.”8

Fell and Voas argue for an enforcement or public health approach, rather than a

criminally based one. The 46 million figure comes from a calculation which estimates

that, of the 212 million licensed drivers, 22% admit to driving while impaired or worse

(Fell & Voas, “Deterring…” 200).

As of 2006-2007:

•! 9.4 percent of DUIs are obtained by individuals under 21.

•! Less than 1 percent of DUI offenders are under the age of 18.

•! Females get 18.8% of the DUIs; males get 81.2%.

•! 73.5 percent were given to first offenders, 19.7 percent were given to second offenders, 5.1 percent were given to third offenders, and 1.7 percent were given to individuals who already had 3 or 4 DUIs.

Evans 11

•! 48% of DUIs are obtained by individuals between the ages of 24-35.

Source: CDADP

Nationwide, in both rural and urban areas, alcohol-related driving fatalities make up

just under one-third of all traffic fatalities (NHSTA—“Traffic Safety Facts”). As for

Colorado, 55 percent of the fatalities are in a rural environment, while the remaining 45

percent are in an urban environment (NHSTA—“Traffic Safety Facts”). In addition, “as

first-time offenders get arrested with BACs at or above 0.150, they will begin to produce

subsequent DUIs, and this will increase as a function of their BAC at initial arrest” (Yao

et al). Racial demographics are not relevant to the purpose of this memo, and thereby

are not included.

Stakeholders

This memo is designed to be an evaluative tool for the Colorado state legislature.

As such, decisions are evaluated from the perspective of the Colorado state government,

but impact on these other stakeholders is considered as necessary. These stakeholders

include police officers, those who drive drunk, alcohol retailers and producers, the

general public, and the criminal justice system.

III.! Policy Options

Overview

This issue falls is a policy dilemma not only because it pertains to public health,

but also because the last century has proven drunk driving and its associated damages to

fall under the realm of state and federal policy.

Evans 12

The two policy options are discussed first evaluatively, and then quantitatively.

a)! Increasing the prevalence of sobriety checkpoints by increasing the per-DUI

payment into LEAF, a fund which facilitates sobriety checkpoints on an

application basis from law enforcement jurisdictions.

b)! Reducing the DUI BAC threshold level to .05% (from its current level of .08%).

The threshold for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) is currently .05%, so this

policy effectively removes the lesser DWAI penalty from statute.

Methodology

Both policy options are discussed, evaluated, and quantified below. These two

policy options were chosen in lieu of other, potentially effective policy options, due to

their quantifiable nature and more likely chance of success. Mandating that bars close

earlier in the night has the theoretical potential to decrease the number of drunk driving

incidents, as this policy would lead to fewer hours in which individuals were driving

after drinking at bars. Allowing bars to close later could also theoretically limit the

number of incidents, as individuals at bars would have time to ‘sober up’ before driving

home. This would also disperse those who would drive drunk across more time, leading

to fewer drunk drivers on the road at any one time. These two policy options could be

categorized under the umbrella of ‘access’ limitation.

While implementing such policy would very likely have an effect, international

results from Australia, Canada, and Scandinavia are inconclusive about exactly what

effect this might be. Vingillis et al notes that moving between specific hours—for

example, extending drinking hours from 11 pm to 12 am showed a significant decrease in

fatalities, as did extending from 1 am to 2 am, but this pattern did not hold true for any

Evans 13

other extension between the hours of 10 pm and 3 am. In fact, extending from 2 am to 3

am saw an increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities (Vingillis et al.). This

inconsistency is corroborated by Hahn et al, who writes “the evidence from six

qualifying studies was insuffıcient to determine whether increasing hours of sale by less

than 2 hours increases excessive alcohol consumption and related harms.” (Hahn 590).

Therefore, while utilizing governmental restrictions on so-called “last call” times has

potential, there is not definitive data to allow policymakers to reliably make such

decisions.

Implementing a policy that increases the overall fine amount was quickly

determined to be a less-effective option. While it has merit as a deterrent of DUI

behavior, the $10,000 ticket is already quite a deterrent from driving drunk. This policy

also was unlikely to significantly reduce incidents of DUI and alcohol-related driving

fatalities due to its purely punitive nature.

Evaluative Factors, below, evaluates both policy options for likely policy

implementation hurdles and benefits. Both policy options are also evaluated in terms of

their efficacy in removing dangerous drivers, potential culture change that could further

or hinder the policy’s effectiveness, and the degree of administrative skill necessary to

implement them. Cost-Benefit Analysis, below, details predicted financial factors

associated with each policy in comparison with the current situation, projected over 20

years, with a high-, mid-, and low-point estimate for each policy option.

Evaluative Factors

LEAF increase

Evans 14

This is an enforcement-style policy decision, as it alters the means available for

the existing structures without constituting a significant shift in daily operations or

statute.

The main benefit of this policy option, as quantified below, is the prevention of

approximately 19 deaths that would otherwise be caused by alcohol-impaired driving. In

addition to the value of a statistical life, there is an impossible-to-quantify benefit to

preventing deaths, which is an important consideration for both this plan and the BAC

decrease.

In terms of removal, culture change, and administrative skill, there are additional

considerations that accompany an increase in LEAF funding. As discussed below, it is

difficult to determine what percentage of the offenders have already been removed from

the road. LEAF removes individuals from the road primarily through the majority of

offenders that do not recidivate; approximately two-thirds of those who receive a DUI

never receive one again, and are therefore removed from the criminal justice system and

are no longer dangerous drivers, as pertains to alcohol-impaired driving (Fell & Voas,

“Deterring…” 203). Those that do continually re-offend, thanks to Colorado’s new ‘4

strikes, you’re out’ policy, are removed from the system via jail time. Increasing sobriety

checkpoints due to LEAF funding has great potential in removing dangerous drivers

from the roads.

The culture change associated with an increase in sobriety checkpoints merits

consideration. While sobriety checkpoints are, in their own regard, a nuisance to the

average law-abiding driver, Fell and Voas note that the vast majority of Americans are in

favor of sobriety checkpoints, even with the acknowledgement of their inconvenience

(Fell & Voas, “Sobriety Checkpoints”). The general culture surrounding alcohol and

Evans 15

driving would not see a significant change as a direct result of this policy—however, as

the policy took off and more checkpoints began being implemented, the likelihood of

being caught would increase—this would be particularly true in heavy-drinking holiday,

such as New Years and Memorial Day Weekend, but could also seep into the more

general Coloradoan psyche. This policy option is likely more politically viable than the

BAC reduction, largely because it is less intrusive. In general, sobriety checkpoints are

effective largely because of deterrence—drivers see and acknowledge that they could be

stopped at a checkpoint, and in addition to telling other drivers, they adjust their own

behavior to minimize their own risk of being arrested (Fell & Voas, “Sobriety

Checkpoints”). An increase in LEAF funding would likely make sense to the public

because it penalizes those who are making mistakes, rather than imposing a general,

blanket restriction.

Skill in administering checkpoints—namely, skill in distributing the funds on the

behalf of LEAF administrators, in addition to skill of police officers in properly detecting

the sings of alcohol-inebriated driving—must be given consideration. If administered

poorly, we would see nowhere near the benefit we anticipate. Administrators, between

LEAF funding allocators and police applicants for LEAF funding, must decide where to

place the checkpoints, how many officers, what time, frequency, etc. If the

administrators constantly had checkpoints in the same location, dangerous drivers

could easily begin avoiding that checkpoint, and the policy is ineffective. As a result of

these considerations, I have included an administrative fee with this policy option, in

hopes of ensuring efficient distribution and use of funds.

In addition to the outlined rationale for their potential to prevent alcohol-related

traffic fatalities, this measure also puts the average citizen in close contact with law

Evans 16

enforcement more frequently, which allows law enforcement to work towards any of its

other many goals—such as identifying stolen cars, drug users, and those breaking other

traffic-related laws.

BAC Reduction

As with an increase in LEAF funding, the most significant impact of this policy,

and the intended one, is lives prevented, which I estimate to be approximately 32 per

year.

We know .05% to be a safer limit than .08%, and there is sound policy rationale

in adopting .05% as the legal limit. As Fell and Voas write, “the risk of being involved in

a crash of any severity increases at each positive BAC level, but the risk rises rapidly and

is statistically significant after a driver reaches or exceeds 0.05 BAC compared to drivers

with no alcohol in their blood systems” (Fell & Voas, “The Effectiveness…”. Fell and Voas

give another important figure—“the relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash

for drivers with BACs of 0.05–0.079 is at least seven times that of drivers at 0.00 BAC

(no alcohol)” (Fell & Voas, “Sobriety Checkpoints”).

Just like the LEAF increase, removal, culture change, and administrative skill are

important to discuss. Removal for decreasing the BAC threshold for a DUI is a moving

target, and is very tied to culture change—ideally, the policy would immediately

convince the entire Colorado populace to never again drive with a BAC of .08%.

Assuming this would happen is unwise, however, as Colorado still has approximately

26,000 DUIs per year, and we assume that some will not adhere to the law. This policy

attempts only to decrease the amount of alcohol consumed before driving, but would

potentially be perceived as an attempt to decrease the total amount of alcohol

consumed. American history has helpful examples of such policy succeeding and of it

Evans 17

failing, as seen in the push to limit tobacco use and in the War on Drugs. As Danielle

Allen writes, “The approach to tobacco has worked. Between 1964 and 2014, smoking

rates declined by half…The progress against smoking has been steady and progressive”

(Allen). This public reaction followed the surgeon general’s 1964 evidence that smoking

was harmful; the 1971 federal prohibition of cigarette advertisements from television

and radio; and the 1986 Congressional doubling of excise taxes on tobacco products

(Allen). In contrast, the War on Drugs, begin in 1973, has been an absolute failure in

limiting substance use—daily use of heroin and marijuana has stayed level or increased

since that time, with greater proportions of young people considering themselves likely

to try either substance (Allen). Implementing the BAC policy would hopefully follow a

pattern similar to smoking cessation, rather than the limitation of controlled substances,

as which avenue the culture follows deeply impacts the perception and effectiveness of

this policy.

As drinking and driving became even further marginalized in Colorado, we may

expect to see a massive decline in alcohol-related property damage, injuries, and

fatalities. Alternately, we could begin to see a large proportion of tourists and rental car

drivers receiving DUIs due to lack of knowledge regarding the limit. This would be an

unintended consequence of the policy decision. What’s more, a DUI is a large black

mark on a criminal record, and removing the DWAI—a notable, but less extreme

infraction—could mar the lives and futures of many low-to-moderately inebriated

drivers that were less likely to cause harm. At its core, this policy has the potential to

significantly reduce all costs pertaining to alcohol-impaired driving (including damage

to public property and private property, increased insurance premiums, increased

Evans 18

hospital fees, etc.) because it impacts society on not just a statutory level, but on a

cultural one as well.

The political backlash against a policy of this nature could be immense. Alcohol-

related interest groups have good reason to push back hard on this law rather than see a

4% loss in sales. This could lead to a decease in Colorado’s thriving microbrewery

industry, in addition to possible declines in tourism and advertising as alcohol’s role

decreased. Sellers of alcohol presently independent of an organized group could

potentially take action by themselves to undermine the chances of the law passing. For

example, the American Beverage Institute has publicly denounced the shift from .08%

to .05%, calling it “a ludicrous plan that would criminalize responsible behavior.”

(Goad). In addition, in a 2004 study of alcohol industry’s involvement in alcohol-related

legislation, Tiffany Bergin finds “the alcohol industry exerted a strong influence over

alcohol policymaking given its extensive campaign donations and lobbying efforts”

(Bergin). Of course, opinion and morality factor in heavily to this decision, making it

more likely to be a hotly debated issue than the relatively basic increase in sobriety

checkpoint funding.

Administrative skill is important to this policy option, but the structures for

implementation are already in place. The administrative burden falls largely on the

criminal justice system, as the uptick in penalization would impact the judicial

department’s probation and trial court divisions, the public defender, and prisons (HB

15-1043 4-5). Therefore, while administrative skill itself likely will not be necessary to

improve as a result of this policy, administrative caseload is. A large portion of the

‘$10,000 ticket” is court fees, and while this does not cover the entire cost of processing

Evans 19

someone in the criminal justice system, it does help offset rising costs (CDOT—“The

Cost of a DUI”).

To its merit, this policy has the potential to boom other linked markets—for

example, designated driver services (taxis, Lyft, Uber, public transit) could see a sharp

increase in use. Along these lines, the recreational marijuana industry could see a spike,

as a result of alcohol’s statutory demonization. This is probably why we have recently

seen the alcohol industry oppose the legalization of marijuana—because they are

competing market alternatives (Fang).

This law would necessitate a shift in the responsibilities that Colorado’s drinkers

hold, as the new laws would be the most stringent for any state nationwide (MADD).

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) provides monetization and quantification for the

status quo, in addition to the policy options of reducing the BAC threshold from .08% to

.05% and doubling the per-DUI fee that enters LEAF.

In general, the CBA is framed from the perspective of the state government, and

is written as an advisory tool for the state government. For example, a policy

accompanied by a decline in alcohol sales is not framed as a loss of profit to the sellers of

alcohol, but rather as a loss in taxed revenue flowing into the general fund. Accounting

for each stakeholder’s entire cost and benefit structure would be outside the scope of

this memo, which seeks to inform policymakers and policy analysts of current research

and likely policy outcomes. This memorandum does that; including full evaluations for

every impacted individual would be a massive undertaking, and is unnecessary for this

analysis.

Evans 20

As a result of framing, each option (including the status quo) results in a net

benefit. I have included revenue from DUI penalties as a benefit in all cases for ease of

comparison between plans. This is an important note because DUIs do bring in

increased revenue, but as the number of DUIs varies between policy options, inserting

this figure into each option is a reasonable approach.

In each policy option, I account for population increase by using an aggregating

1.59% increase in all DUI and DWAI arrests, expecting DUI and DWAI to conflate with

population. As by-county arrests show, as population increases, DUI and DWAI arrests

also increase (CDOT—Alcohol and Impaired Driving). This figure comes from the U.S.

Census Bureau, and describes Colorado’s population growth from 2013-2014 (U.S.

Census Bureau). I acknowledge that Colorado’s population growth is volatile and has the

potential to decline, but this is more reasonable than neglecting to account for

population growth.

The CBA utilizes a discount rate of 7%, the figure recommended by the OMB

Circular A-94 and the standard rate for evaluating the over-time costs and benefits of a

public sector investment (OMB Circular A-94).

It is important to note that benefits and costs exist in an abstract, financial matter

for this memo, and that a financial evaluation neglects important practical

considerations. Proceeds from DUI citations are framed as a benefit, as they add to the

net money available to the state government, but a surge in the rate of drunk driving

would result in an increased financial payout, though this occurrence would not be a

practical ‘benefit’.

As the subject of this memo regards preventing fatalities, it uniformly neglects a

quantification of dollars saved due to injury prevention as a result of the same measures

Evans 21

that prevent fatalities. In the case of each policy option, the actual benefits are slightly

greater than described due to the consequential prevention of quality-of-life-impairing

injuries, but these policies are specifically designed to decrease fatalities.

Status Quo

Overview

The Status quo option consists of the present and predictably ongoing policies in

place in Colorado in order to prevent and mitigate harm caused by alcohol-impaired

driving. This generally consists of the Heat is On program and the LEAF program. The

system brings in proceeds via DUI and DWI citation penalties. The status quo could

have been framed in two distinct ways: fatalities avoided due to current legislation, or

cost of fatalities not avoided. I choose the former to provide more meaningful

comparison between policy options.

There is no data available on number of DWAI arrests in Colorado for any year;

to accommodate this, I choose three similar states and adjust for population—

Oklahoma, Arizona, and Montana, all of which have the same BAC thresholds for DUI

and DWAI. Oklahoma has .011 DWAI arrests per capita (Warren-Kigenyi et al 3).

Arizona has .017 DWAI arrests per capita; and Montana has .085 DWAI arrests per

capita (Warren-Kigenyi et al 3). Averaged and extended to Colorado’s population of

5,456,574, this means Colorado has approximately 60,000 DWAI arrests per year (U.S.

Census Bureau). This also makes practical sense because the threshold is easier to meet

for a DWAI than a DUI, so we would expect more cases. In addition, some DUI cases are

Evans 22

pled down to DWAIs, resulting in a larger share of the total alcohol-impaired driving

infractions (Warren-Kigenyi et al 4).

Under the status quo, there is a rate of 2.75 fatalities caused by alcohol-impaired

driving per 100,000. This figure will be compared to expected decreases in fatalities

under each of the quantified policy options below.

Costs

While the Heat Is On program is an important element in Colorado’s anti-DUI

legislation, it receives its funding from federal sources. I have left it as a line item on the

Cost-Benefit analysis for the sake of thoroughness, but it does not impact the NPV of the

status quo.

Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF), was passed in 1982 and mandated

that each DUI convict pay a $50-dollar fee that rolls into LEAF—this penalty has since

been increased to $90 (Vaughan). In sum, this accounts for approximately $1.4 million

dollars per year divvied out between law enforcement groups, after ~40% goes to CDOT.

The most significant cost in the status quo is the lost tax revenue due to DUI—in

other words, the money that the federal government receives in specific punitive funds

rather than general tax funds. Utilizing Colorado’s tax rate as published the Tax Policy

Center’s of 4.63%, this accounts for a loss in approximately $500 in lost revenue per

DUI, based on the real dollars-adjusted CDOT published estimate of $11,338 dollars in

cost to the recipient of the DUI (Tax Policy Center; CDOT—“The Cost of a DUI”). This is

because the state is no longer receiving this money in unappropriated general fund, but

in specific cash funds.

Increasing LEAF

Evans 23

Overview

In general, LEAF funds are used to implement sobriety checkpoints for events

and times expected to yield a higher-than-average proportion of impaired drivers

(Vaughan). Quantifying the lives saved due to an increase in LEAF funding is therefore

tantamount to quantifying the lives saved due to sobriety checkpoints. This policy

option suggests doubling the LEAF penalty from $90 per infraction to $180 per

infraction, in addition to a $20 administrative fee, with the additional funding being

allocated as the existing funding is—by submission of application by law enforcement

jurisdictions. As discussed earlier, there is administrative skill associated with

distributing this money effectively, so I decided increasing administrative funding was

crucial to effective administration of the policy.

It is important to note that not 100% of the money paid into LEAF enters the law

enforcement system—calculating out the percentage based on DUI count and funding

allocated proves it to be 40%(CDOT—“Alcohol and Impaired Driving”; Vaughan).

Therefore, every dollar brought in for LEAF funding, both in this section and the below

section regarding BAC reduction, is multiplied by .6 to in order to account for this fact.

In line with this increase in LEAF funding, we would anticipate the fatality rate

per 100,000 to drop from 2.75 to 2.4, for a 12.67% decrease.

Costs

LEAF administration is an important cost; it is the holders of the LEAF fund that

determine how the money is allocated after law enforcement officers submit funding

applications for their jurisdictions. I have therefore allowed for 10 percent of the sum

total of LEAF funding to be allocated to administrative costs, a standard benchmark for

state governments (Government Accountability Office); this funding (noted on the CBA

Evans 24

as LEAF Administrative Fee) will come from a $20 increase in the LEAF penalty, on top

of the doubling of the value of the money entering the fund itself.

The other cost is the payout of LEAF funding itself, approximately 1.4 million

dollars per year, in 2014 dollars (Vaughan). As the increase in penalty is paid by those

who have infracted the law, it is not a cost to the state for the purposes of this memo.

Benefits

Utilizing sobriety checkpoints valued at $1.2 million dollars results in

approximately a 15% reduction in drunk driving crashes (Miler et al 464). I substitute

crashes for fatalities, as there is no compelling reason to assume there is a

disproportionate relationship between alcohol-related crashes and alcohol-related

fatalities, which Yao et al argues in “Enforcement Uniquely Predicts Reductions in

Alcohol-Impaired Crash Fatalities”—the two move proportionally with one another (Yao

et al). It would be impractical to assume that this trend would continue for every $1.2

million dollars spent, but equally impractical to assume that it would have no effect. I

therefore use other figures (below) for the same or similar measurements to corroborate

my calculations and add resilience to a practically difficult-to-predict measure—

quantifying the exact impact of a DUI checkpoint.

Nunn and Newby estimate a 19% reduction in alcohol-related crashes as a result

of DUI checkpoints (Nunn & Newby 373). This estimate is even higher than Miller’s et

al; however, both assume no DUI checkpoint presence prior to implementation. As

Colorado’s law enforcement already uses some DUI checkpoint processes, it would be

unwise to assume their full value in the literature, because some of the offenders have

already been removed from the roads. I therefore halve and average the two estimates

Evans 25

for my low-end estimate (8.5% of lives saved, so 13 lives), and average their estimate for

a high-end estimate (17% of lives saved, so 26 lives).

Fell and Voas estimate that, in general, increasing checkpoint frequency in an

area in which checkpoints are already in place is likely to save approximately 20 percent

of the lives that would otherwise not have been saved (Fell & Voas—“Sobriety

Checkpoints…”. This provides evidence that my above estimates are in fact conservative

ones, making them viable for use in my CBA.

The same figures and methodology are used here as in the status quo for

monetization of DUI and DWI arrest rates and penalization.

BAC Reduction

Overview

This policy option effectively removes the DWI penalty, causing all incidents of

alcohol-impaired driving in which the driver has a BAC of .05 or above to be considered

a DUI for all legal purposes. Federal law mandates a BAC of .08 or lower for the states,

but a state could impose harsher restrictions if it chose to.

As mentioned in the above section on LEAF funding, only 60% of the money paid

into LEAF is provided to law enforcement to fund sobriety checkpoints. All calculations

dependent on LEAF money account for this fact.

In comparison with the status quo, this policy option would predictably decrease

the fatality rate from 2.75 to 2.15, a decrease of 21.67%.

Costs

A large cost associated with the reduction in BAC is the loss of tax revenue from

purchase of alcohol which would be generated if this law did not go into effect. I aim to

Evans 26

quantify this by estimating the overall loss in percentage of alcohol sales, and

multiplying that by expected tax revenue from alcohol brought in by the state.

In estimating the overall loss of alcohol sales, I developed with Andy Sherbo a

method for applying the .10% to .08% shift to the .08% to .05% shift. The previous shift

was associated with an estimated 2.4% loss in alcohol sales, which accompanied a 20

percent decrease in the legal limit. This policy suggestion reduces the legal limit by

37.5%; therefore, we would expect alcohol sales to drop by 4.5% with the

implementation of this policy. Multiplied by the value of Colorado tax revenue,

$38,817,000 annually (in 2012 dollars), I estimate a real-dollars adjusted $1.802

million dollar loss in alcohol tax revenue (Tax Policy Center). We determined that using

figures from fairly recent America was preferable to using more recent data from foreign

countries, largely because the applicability to an American state is stronger. In this

calculation, we assume a linear relationship between BAC and alcohol sales—this may

not be the case, but we determined it to be the best available method.

Benefits

A meta-analysis of BAC studies by Fell and Voas thoroughly discusses the effects

that moving from .10% to .08% had on alcohol-related fatalities, and makes comparable

projections for the shift from .08% to .05%. Fell and Voas note that, in the earlier

legislative shift from .10% to .08%, America saw somewhere between a 7% reduction

and a 14.8% reduction in alcohol-related driving fatalities—interestingly enough,

Congress used this statistic to justify the federal mandate (via withheld funds) to

implement a .08% legal limit (Fell & Voas, “The Effectiveness...”). However, they note

that this legislation came in the wake of, and in tandem with, other significant anti-

Evans 27

drunk driving legislation, and thus they only confidently attribute a 5% fatality

prevention rate to the historical lowering of the BAC threshold.

Figure 4 (next page) details the core of Fell and Voas’ study, and depicts overall

decrease in percentage of alcohol-related fatalities in both general national studies and

specific state studies. In nearly all cases, we do see a marked reduction in the fatality

rate.

As no American state has made the shift from .08% to .05%, we must look

internationally to attempt to create projections. Fell and Voas provide a meta-analysis of

these studies as well, estimates a 14-18% reduction in fatal crashes after lowering from

.08% to .05% (Fell & Voas, “The Effectiveness...”). I therefore use the projections from

the initial legislative shift (5%), from .10% to .08% as my low-end estimate,

international projections of the shift from .08% to .05% for my high-end estimate (16%),

and average the two to obtain a midpoint estimate (9%),

Figure!4! ! ! ! ! Source:!Fell!&!Voas,!“The!Effectiveness…”!

!

Evans 28

One of the most difficult-to-quantify elements of this policy measure is the effect

that implementing it would have on the DUI rate. It would make logical sense for there

to be an immense spike in DUI arrests, as the law took effect and people learned that the

range from .05% to .08% was no longer a lesser infraction, followed by a gradual

decrease as individuals shifted their behavior to comply with the new statute. I therefore

provide a low-point estimates that assume immediate compliance with the law, a high-

point estimate that assumes no change in behavior, and a mid-point estimate

conducting using random number generation. This method produces an average DUI

rate of 46,104 DUIs per year, with a lowpoint of 26,000 and a highpoint of 86,000.

An increase in the DUI rate also means more individuals paying into LEAF,

which results in more funding for sobriety checkpoints and even more saved lives than

the policy’s direct effect. As such, the low-point estimate, which assumes no increase in

number of DUIs and therefore no increase in LEAF funding, only accounts for lives

saved due to the explicit policy change of decreasing the BAC. The highpoint estimate

assumes the same number of lives saved as the highpoint estimate for an increase in

LEAF funding (26) in addition to the lives saved from the policy itself (24) for a grand

total of 50 lives saved. The midpoint estimate assumes the same number of lives saved

as the midpoint estimate for LEAF increase (19) plus the lives saved from the policy

change (13.5) for a total of 32.5 lives saved.

Other benefits are quantified using the same figures and methodology as those

used in the status quo, particularly regarding monetization of DUI arrest rates and

penalization.

IV.! Conclusion

Evans 29

CBA Results

The final results of the CBA are presented below.

As a result of framing, and as discussed above in the CBA section, each policy

option (including the status quo) represents a significant financial benefit—therefore,

each option has a high profitability index as well as very short discounted and

undiscounted payback periods. The BAC decrease, though saving fewer lives than the

LEAF increase by itself, ends up saving more lives and being more financially viable as a

result of the consequent increase in sobriety checkpoints that would accompany the

policy-caused increase in DUI rates. Each policy alternative presents over a billion-

dollar savings to the state over 20 years when compared to the status quo. The

‘crossover’ effect that occurs between the two policy options is attributable to the larger

startup cost of the BAC decrease; it makes more money, ultimately, but with a power

proportional return on investment.

Policy Suggestion

Though the cost-benefit analysis reveals that the BAC decrease would have the

greatest NPV, evaluative considerations regarding removal, culture change, and

administrative skill are important to determining my policy suggestion. Non-financially,

the LEAF increase seems to be the better option—there is an allotment for

Unknown!

Evans 30

administrative skill, in addition to a lesser degree of culture change and the effective

removal of many dangerous drivers.

While it does not save lives or accrue money to the same degree as the reduction

in BAC, this policy is significantly more likely to make it through the legislature with

public and Congressional support than a reduction in BAC would be, in addition to

having a higher IRR (Internal Rate of Return) and Profitability Index. If there was a

massive difference in financial payout between BAC reduction and LEAF increase, it

would be difficult to argue for LEAF—however, LEAF still has a large NPV, in addition

to having preferable metrics for payback period.

Therefore, I propose implementing a increase in LEAF funding, via the means

discussed earlier, in order to increase the number of sobriety checkpoints and therefore

reduce alcohol-related driving fatalities. Primarily, the ambiguity regarding success of

cultural implementation leads me to this decision, because though LEAF has less of a

positive impact on lives saved, it is more likely to be implemented well and therefore be

a successful policy.

Weaknesses, Limitations, and Extension Possibilities

No 20-year projection can perfectly account for changes in economic climate,

public opinion, or legal landscape. On top of those standard weaknesses, this paper is

unable to provide specific figures for several important values. In evaluating the

effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints, for example, this memo uses a single-point

estimate, and extrapolates relevant data from this. A continuous model which explained

the relationship between dollars invested in checkpoints and lives saved would be more

suitable to these purposes, but no such model presently exists.

Evans 31

Though not quantified in this memo, combining both policy options has the

potential to yield impressive results. This could increase the funding to LEAF by a

magnitude of 4 to 8 times, but as discussed, there is surely a point of diminishing

returns in the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints.

Neither quantified policy option addresses extreme drunk drivers. The policy

assumes that the standard drunk driver can be influenced by policy decisions, when this

is certainly not the case for every citizen. There are some for whom no policy could

impact impaired driving behavior—for these individuals, a criminally-based approach

would be necessary for there to be a policy-induced societal benefit.

Further research in this field should focus on alternative means of reducing the

fatality rate, or replacing necessary assumptions in this memo’s analysis with more

established figures. Specifically, modeling the behavior of the public after a law of this

caliber and scope’s implementation would be a valuable asset in the subject literature.

Similarly, a model accurately evaluating the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints versus

dollars invested would be an important and helpful addition.

Summary

Approximately 150 individuals die each year in Colorado due to alcohol-impaired

driving. Implementing an increase in LEAF funding and thereby increasing the number

of sobriety checkpoints would save approximately 19 lives annually. Lowering the BAC

threshold for a DUI from .08% to .05% would save approximately 32.5 lives annually.

Both policy options merit recommendation; however, in terms of political viability, this

memo finds that an increase in LEAF funding is the preferred method of preventing

alcohol-related driving fatalities.

Evans 32

Works Cited

Allen, Danielle. “Why the War on Drugs Should Take Cues from our Battle Against Smoking” Washington Post. 29 Dec 2015. Web. Bell Policy Center. “Colorado’s TABOR”. Bell Policy Center. 2015. Web. Boardman, Anthony E. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. Print. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. “Driving Under-The-Influence DUI Statistics” CDADP. Oct 2009. Web. Accessed April 16 2016. Colorado Department of Transportation. “Alcohol and Impaired Driving” Web. Accessed January 12, 2015. Colorado Department of Transportation. “Joint Budget Committee Hearing for the

Colorado Department of Transportation (for FY 2016-17)”. Nov 27 2015. Web. Accessed March 25 2016.

Colorado Department of Transportation. “The Cost of a DUI.” CDOT. 2009. Web. Department of Motor Vehicles. “Colorado DUI and DWAI Laws: Fines and Penalties”. Web. 2016. Accessed Jan 4 2016. Fang, Lee. “The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying to Keep Marijuana Illegal” Republic Report. April 20 2012. Web. Fell, James C., and Robert B. Voas. “Deterring DUI Behavior in the First Place.” Criminology & Public Policy 12, no. 2 (May 1, 2013): 203–11. Web. Fell, James C. and Robert B. Voas, “The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States” Addiction. V. 109, i. 6, pp. 869–874. June 2014. Web. Fell, James C. and Robert B. Voas, “Sobriety Checkpoints: Evidence of Effectiveness is

Strong, but Use is Limited” Journal of Traffic Injury Prevention. V. 5. i. 3. 2004. Web.

Frank, John. “Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper Signs Felony DUI Bill into Law” Denver Post. 01 June 2015. Web.

Goad, Ben. “States Balk at lower alcohol limit for DUI” The Hill. 14 Jul 2013. Web. Governor’s Highway Safety Association. “Drunk Driving Laws” GHSA. April 2016. Web. Accessed April 21 2016.

Evans 33

Hahn, Robert A., et al. "Effectiveness of Policies Restricting Hours of Alcohol Sales in Preventing Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39.6 (2010): 590-604. Web. HB15-1043. “Felony Offense for Repeat Offenders” Colorado Legislative Council Staff Fiscal Note. April 20, 2015. Web. Accessed 10 May 2016. Miller, Ted R. , Galbraith, & Lawrence. “Costs and Benefits of a Community Sobriety

Checkpoint Program”. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(4), 462–468 (1998). Web.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. “Colorado”. MADD. 2015. Web. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes”. U.S. Department of Transportation—NHTSA. 2000. Web. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Traffic Safety Facts—Rural/Urban Comparison”. U.S. Department of Transportation—NHTSA. July 2012. Web. Nunn, Samuel, and William Newby. “The Geography of Deterrence: Exploring the

Small Area Effects of Sobriety Checkpoints on Alcohol-Impaired Collision Rates Within a City.” Evaluation Review 35, no. 4 (August 1, 2011). Web.

Office of Legislative Legal Services. “Law Summary—Colorado Drunk Driving Laws”. Aug 03 2015. Web. Accessed March 16 2016. Office of Management and Budgeting. “OMB Circular A-94”. OMB. 2015. Web. Raymond, Adam K. “A Brief History of Drunk Driving”. The Fix. Nov 23 2011. Web. Accessed March 15 2016. Tax Policy Center. “Alcohol Tax Revenue”. Urban Institute and Brookings Institute. 12 Jan 2015. Web. Accessed April 13 2016. U.S. Census Bureau. “Population by State”. Census Bureau. 2015. Web. Vaughan, Kevin. “Colorado to Drain DUI Fund.” The Denver Post. Sep 02 2009. Web. Vingilis, Evelyn et al. “Impact of Extended Drinking Hours in Ontario on Motor-

Vehicle Collision and Non-Motor-Vehicle Collision Injuries.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68.6 (2007): 905–911. Web.

Warren-Kigenyi, Nathan and Heidi Coleman. “DWI Recidivism in the United States: An Examination of State-Level Driver Data and the Effect of Look-Back Periods on Recidivism Prevalence”. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. March 2014. Web.

Evans 34

Yao, J., Johnson, M. B., and Tippetts, S. (2016) “Enforcement uniquely predicts

reductions in alcohol-impaired crash fatalities.” Addiction, 111: 448–453. Feb 9 2016. Web.

Zelinger, Marshall. “Hickenlooper Asks State Lawmakers to Pass Felony DUI bill

Which GOP has Tried to do in Past Years” The Denver Channel. Jan 17 2015. Web.

CBA OverviewIndicator Status Quo LEAF IncreaseNet Present Value $ 383,957,335$ 1,643,360,729$ Profitability Index (PI)/Benefit-Cost Ratio 27.99 105.790IRR 200% 769%Discounted Payback Period in Years 0.74 0.195Undiscounted Payback in Years 0.36 0.096Lives Saved 0 19

Policy Option

BAC Decrease2,340,432,697$

75.489547%0.2730.135

32.5

Policy Option

Population*adjustment:*per*year,*for*applicable*categoriesCoefficient= 1.02

Status&Quo))Year&1 Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unitLives*saved $A5.5*million/lifeLost*tax*revenueAADUI 475.50A$*******************Heat*Is*On*program n/aLEAF*program 1,400,000.00A$********Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $90/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI

Status&Quo))Year&2 Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unitLives*saved $5.5*million/lifeLost*tax*revenueAADUI 475.50A$*******************Heat*Is*On*program n/aLEAF*program 1,400,000.00A$********Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $90/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI


Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits




Status&Quo))Year&7 Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unit

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Lives*saved $5.5*million/lifeLost*tax*revenueAADUI 475.50A$*******************Heat*Is*On*program n/aLEAF*program 1,400,000.00A$********Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $90/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI



Status&Quo))Year&10 Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unitLives*saved $5.5*million/lifeLost*tax*revenueAADUI 475.50A$*******************Heat*Is*On*program n/a

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Costs

LEAF*program 1,400,000.00A$********Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $90/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI



Status&Quo))Year&13 Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unitLives*saved $5.5*million/lifeLost*tax*revenueAADUI 475.50A$*******************Heat*Is*On*program n/aLEAF*program 1,400,000.00A$********Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Proceeds*from*LEAF $90/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI




Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits




Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits


Costs

Benefits

In&2015&dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe$A5.5*million/life 0;*unknown A$********************* A 20

524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 13,648,780.70A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* A 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,401,400.00A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 13,866,400.00$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 10,833,750.00$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,340,000.00$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 21,000,000.00$************************** 1

Total&Cost 15,050,180.70A$*************************Total&Benefit 48,040,150.00$*************************Net&Benefit 32,989,969.30$*************************

15,050,180.70$******

In&2015&dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment Timeframe$5.5*million/life 0;*unknown A$********************* A$********************************************** 20

524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 13,865,796.32A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,423,682.26A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 14,086,875.76$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 11,006,006.63$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,377,206.00$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 21,333,900.00$************************** 1


In&2015&dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment Timeframe$5.5*million/life 0;*unknown A$********************* n/a 20

524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 14,086,262.48A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,446,318.81A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 14,310,857.08$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 11,181,002.13$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,415,003.58$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 21,673,109.01$************************** 1

Total&Cost 15,532,581.29A$*************************Total&Benefit 49,579,971.80$*************************

Net&Benefit 34,047,390.51$*************************


524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 14,310,234.05A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,469,315.28A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 14,538,399.71$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 11,358,780.06$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,453,402.13$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 22,017,711.44$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 14,537,766.77A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,492,677.39A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 14,769,560.27$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 11,539,384.67$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,492,411.23$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 22,367,793.06$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 14,768,917.27A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,516,410.96A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 15,004,396.28$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 11,722,860.88$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,532,040.56$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 22,723,440.96$************************** 1


In&2015&dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment Timeframe

$5.5*million/life 0;*unknown A$********************* n/a 20524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 15,003,743.05A$************************** 1

n/a A$********************* n/a 201,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,540,521.89A$**************************** 1

800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 15,242,966.18$************************** 11,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 11,909,254.37$************************** 1

90.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,572,300.01$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 23,084,743.68$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 15,242,302.56A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,565,016.19A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 15,485,329.34$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 12,098,611.52$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,613,199.58$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 23,451,791.10$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 15,484,655.17A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,589,899.95A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 15,731,546.08$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 12,290,979.44$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,654,749.45$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 23,824,674.58$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 15,730,861.19A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,615,179.36A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 15,981,677.66$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 12,486,406.01$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,696,959.97$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 24,203,486.90$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 15,980,981.89A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,640,860.71A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 16,235,786.33$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 12,684,939.87$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,739,841.63$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 24,588,322.35$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 16,235,079.50A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,666,950.40A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 16,493,935.34$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 12,886,630.41$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,783,405.11$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 24,979,276.67$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 16,493,217.26A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,693,454.91A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 16,756,188.91$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 13,091,527.84$************************** 1

90.00$******************** 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,827,661.26$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 25,376,447.17$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 16,755,459.42A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,720,380.84A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 17,022,612.31$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 13,299,683.13$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,872,621.07$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 25,779,932.68$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 17,021,871.22A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,747,734.90A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 17,293,271.85$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 13,511,148.09$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,918,295.75$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 26,189,833.61$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 17,292,518.97A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,775,523.88A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 17,293,271.85$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 13,511,148.09$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 2,918,295.75$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 26,189,833.61$************************** 1

Total&Cost 19,068,042.85A$*************************

Total&Benefit 59,912,549.29$*************************Net&Benefit 40,844,506.44$*************************


524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 17,567,470.02A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,803,754.71A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 17,847,569.80$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 13,944,218.35$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 3,011,835.32$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 27,029,291.37$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 17,846,792.80A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,832,434.41A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 18,131,346.16$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 14,165,931.42$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 3,059,723.51$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 27,459,057.10$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 18,130,556.80A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,861,570.12A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 18,419,634.57$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 14,391,169.73$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 3,108,373.11$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 27,895,656.11$************************** 1



524.95A$******************* 26000 13,648,780.70A$** 18,418,832.66A$************************** 1n/a A$********************* n/a 20

1,401,400.00A$******** 1 1,401,400.00A$**** 1,891,169.08A$**************************** 1800.00$******************* 17333 13,866,400.00$** 18,712,506.76$************************** 1

1,250.00$**************** 8667 10,833,750.00$** 14,619,989.33$************************** 190.00$********************* 26000 2,340,000.00$**** 3,157,796.24$**************************** 1350.00$******************* 60000 21,000,000.00$** 28,339,197.04$************************** 1


SourceAndy*SherboSee*memoFederal*GovernmentVaughanDMVDMVVaughanDMV






Source

Andy*SherboSee*memoFederal*GovernmentVaughanDMVDMVVaughanDMV



SourceAndy*SherboSee*memoFederal*Government

VaughanDMVDMVVaughanDMV



SourceAndy*SherboSee*memoFederal*GovernmentVaughanDMVDMV

VaughanDMV




(1)$Uses$Constant$Dollars

*Year $Cost$$ PV$$$$$$$$$$Cost$$

0 $15,050,181 $15,050,181

1 $15,289,479 $14,065,589

2 $15,532,581 $13,354,423

3 $15,779,549 $12,679,213

4 $16,030,444 $12,038,143

5 $16,285,328 $11,429,485

6 $16,544,265 $10,851,602

7 $16,807,319 $10,302,937

8 $17,074,555 $9,782,013

9 $17,346,041 $9,287,427

10 $17,621,843 $8,817,847

11 $17,902,030 $8,372,010

12 $18,186,672 $7,948,715

13 $18,475,840 $7,546,822

14 $18,769,606 $7,165,249

15 $19,068,043 $6,802,969

16 $19,371,225 $6,459,006

17 $19,679,227 $6,132,434

18 $19,992,127 $5,822,373

19 $20,310,002 $5,527,990

20 $0 $0

$351,116,356 $189,436,428

$383,957,335

27.99

199.80%

0.74

0.36

Constant'Dollars'Year'2015

Startup

Institute$for$Public$Policy$Studies$(IPPS):$Cost$Benefit$Analysis$(CBA)$and$$$CostAEffectiveness$Analysis$(CEA)$Template$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansStatus$Quo (2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Date:/April/22,/2016

Cost$Description Benefit$Description

Benefits/begin

Net/Present/Value/$

Profitability/Index/(PI)/BenefitLCost/Ratio

Internal/Rate/of/Return/(IRR)

(4)/This/example/uses/Constant/Dollars/and/OMB/Circular/AL94/Real/Discount/Rate/of/7%.//This/rate/can/be/changed/in/cell/J5.

Discounted/Payback/Period/in/Years

Undiscounted/Payback/in/Years

Notes:

(1)/Input/data/in/only/columns/D/and/H,/the/blue/and/green/highlighted/areas.//Simply/override/numbers/in/the/Example./

(2)/Spreadsheet/automatically/computes/Net/Present/Value/(NPV),/Profitability/Index/(PI),/IRR,/and/two/Payback/Periods.(3)/You/may/need/to/add/together/certain/Costs/and/Benefits/as/there/is/one/line/per/year/for/this/data/for/each/year./Just/keep/track/of/your/numbers/and/how/you/added/these/together/for/input/on/the/Spreadsheet./

Total/$

7.00%

*Benefit$$ PV$$$$$$Benefit$$

Discount$Rate

$$Net$Cash$$$Flows$$

Net$Disc.$$$Flows$$

L$/////////////////// $0 1 L$15,050,181 L$15,050,181

$48,040,150 $44,897,336 0.935 $32,989,969 $30,831,747

$48,803,988 $42,627,294 0.873 $33,514,510 $29,272,871

$49,579,972 $40,472,026 0.816 $34,047,391 $27,792,813

$50,368,293 $38,425,730 0.763 $34,588,744 $26,387,587

$51,169,149 $36,482,896 0.713 $35,138,705 $25,053,411

$51,982,739 $34,638,294 0.666 $35,697,410 $23,786,692

$52,809,264 $32,886,956 0.623 $36,264,999 $22,584,019

$53,648,932 $31,224,167 0.582 $36,841,613 $21,442,154

$54,501,950 $29,645,449 0.544 $37,427,394 $20,358,023

$55,368,531 $28,146,553 0.508 $38,022,490 $19,328,706

$56,248,890 $26,723,443 0.475 $38,627,048 $18,351,432

$57,143,248 $25,372,285 0.444 $39,241,218 $17,423,570

$58,051,825 $24,089,444 0.415 $39,865,153 $16,542,621

$58,974,849 $22,871,463 0.388 $40,499,009 $15,706,214

$59,912,549 $21,715,065 0.362 $41,142,943 $14,912,096

$60,865,159 $20,617,135 0.339 $41,797,116 $14,158,129

$61,832,915 $19,574,717 0.317 $42,461,690 $13,442,284

$62,816,058 $18,585,005 0.296 $43,136,831 $12,762,632

$63,814,834 $17,645,333 0.277 $43,822,707 $12,117,344

$64,829,489 $16,753,172 0.258 $44,519,488 $11,504,682

PV/Net/Cash/Flows/0L20 $378,708,844

$1,120,762,783 $573,393,763 PV/Net/Cash/Flows/1L20 $393,759,025

Avg./Net/Disc/$/1L20 $19,101,436

Avg./Net/UnDisc./$/1L20 $38,771,393


(2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




A$15,050,181

A$20,000,000

A$10,000,000

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

A$15,050,181

$30,831,747

$29,272,871

$27,792,813

$26,387,587$25,053,411

$23,786,692$22,584,019

$21,442,154$20,358,023

$19,328,706$18,351,432

$17,423,570$16,542,621

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Years&after&policy&implementation

Status&Quo))NPV&TImeline

$16,542,621$15,706,214

$14,912,096$14,158,129

$13,442,284$12,762,632

$12,117,344$11,504,682

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


LEAF&Increase)Y1 Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unitMidpoint*Estimate

LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUILEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAILives*saved $5.5*million/life




LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUILEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAILives*saved $5.5*million/life






LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUILEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAILives*saved $5.5*million/life






LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUILEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAILives*saved $5.5*million/life





Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits






LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUILEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAILives*saved $5.5*million/life






LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUILEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAILives*saved $5.5*million/life

Benefits

In&2015&Dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment&(n/a)

A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$2,802,800.00A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$13,648,780.70

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $13,866,400.00

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $10,833,750.00$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $520,000.00$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $4,680,000.00$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $21,000,000.00

$5,500,000.00 19 $104,500,000.00 $104,500,000.00Total&Cost A$16,731,860.70Total&Benefit $155,400,150.00Net&Benefit $138,668,289.30


A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$2,847,364.52A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$13,865,796.32

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$284,736.45$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $14,086,875.76

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,006,006.63$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $528,268.00$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $4,754,412.00$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $21,333,900.00



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$2,892,637.62A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$14,086,262.48

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$289,263.76$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $14,310,857.08

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,181,002.13$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $536,667.46$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $4,830,007.15

$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $21,673,109.01$5,500,000.00 19 $104,500,000.00 $107,849,518.65

Total&Cost A$17,268,163.86Total&Benefit $160,381,161.48Net&Benefit $143,112,997.63


A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$2,938,630.55A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$14,310,234.05

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$293,863.06$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $14,538,399.71

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,358,780.06$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $545,200.47$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $4,906,804.26$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $22,017,711.44



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$2,985,354.78A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$14,537,766.77

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$298,535.48$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $14,769,560.27

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,539,384.67$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $553,869.16$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $4,984,822.45$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $22,367,793.06



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,032,821.92A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$14,768,917.27

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$303,282.19$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $15,004,396.28

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,722,860.88$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $562,675.68$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,064,081.13$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $22,723,440.96



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,081,043.79A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$15,003,743.05

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$308,104.38$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $15,242,966.18

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,909,254.37$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $571,622.22$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,144,600.02$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $23,084,743.68



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,130,032.39A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$15,242,302.56

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$313,003.24$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $15,485,329.34

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,098,611.52$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $580,711.02$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,226,399.16$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $23,451,791.10



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,179,799.90

A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$15,484,655.17A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$317,979.99

$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $15,731,546.08$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,290,979.44

$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $589,944.32$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,309,498.91$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $23,824,674.58



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,230,358.72A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$15,730,861.19

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$323,035.87$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $15,981,677.66

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,486,406.01$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $599,324.44$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,393,919.94$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $24,203,486.90



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,281,721.42A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$15,980,981.89

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$328,172.14$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $16,235,786.33

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,684,939.87$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $608,853.70$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,479,683.27$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $24,588,322.35



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,333,900.79A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$16,235,079.50

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$333,390.08$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $16,493,935.34

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,886,630.41$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $618,534.47$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,566,810.23$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $24,979,276.67



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,386,909.82A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$16,493,217.26

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$338,690.98$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $16,756,188.91

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,091,527.84$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $628,369.17$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,655,322.51$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $25,376,447.17



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,440,761.68A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$16,755,459.42

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$344,076.17$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $17,022,612.31

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,299,683.13$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $638,360.24$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,745,242.14$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $25,779,932.68

$5,500,000.00 19 $104,500,000.00 $128,285,855.48Total&Cost A$20,540,297.27

Total&Benefit $190,771,685.98Net&Benefit $170,231,388.72


A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,495,469.79A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$17,021,871.22

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$349,546.98$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $17,293,271.85

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,511,148.09$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $648,510.17$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,836,591.49$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $26,189,833.61



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,551,047.76A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$17,292,518.97

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$355,104.78$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $17,568,234.87

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,725,975.34$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $658,821.48$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $5,929,393.30$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $26,606,251.97



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,607,509.42A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$17,567,470.02

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$360,750.94$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $17,847,569.80

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,944,218.35$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $669,296.74$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $6,023,670.65

$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $27,029,291.37$5,500,000.00 19 $104,500,000.00 $134,502,902.30



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,664,868.82A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$17,846,792.80

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$366,486.88$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $18,131,346.16

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $14,165,931.42$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $679,938.56$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $6,119,447.01$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $27,459,057.10



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,723,140.24A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$18,130,556.80

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$372,314.02$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $18,419,634.57

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $14,391,169.73$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $690,749.58$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $6,216,746.22$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $27,895,656.11



A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00 A$3,782,338.17A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70 A$18,418,832.66

A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00 A$378,233.82$800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00 $18,712,506.76

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $14,619,989.33$20.00 26000 $520,000.00 $701,732.50$180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00 $6,315,592.48$350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00 $28,339,197.04


Timeframe Source LEAF&Increase)Y1 Cost&Item/Measure(#*of*yrs) HighAEnd*Estimate1 CDOT/Calculation LEAF*program1 See*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUI1 GAO Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense1 Policy*Suggestion LEAF*Administration*Fee1 Policy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAF1 DMV Proceeds*from*DWAI1 See*memo Lives*saved

Timeframe Source LEAF&Increase)Y2 Cost&Item/MeasureHighAEnd*Estimate

1 CDOT/Calculation LEAF*program1 See*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUI1 GAO Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense1 Policy*Suggestion LEAF*Administration*Fee1 Policy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAF1 DMV Proceeds*from*DWAI1 See*memo Lives*saved


1 CDOT/Calculation LEAF*program1 See*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUI1 GAO Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense1 Policy*Suggestion LEAF*Administration*Fee1 Policy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAF

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

1 DMV Proceeds*from*DWAI1 See*memo Lives*saved






1 CDOT/Calculation LEAF*program1 See*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUI1 GAO Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense1 Policy*Suggestion LEAF*Administration*Fee1 Policy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAF1 DMV Proceeds*from*DWAI1 See*memo Lives*saved






1 CDOT/Calculation LEAF*program

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

1 See*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUI1 GAO Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense1 Policy*Suggestion LEAF*Administration*Fee1 Policy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAF1 DMV Proceeds*from*DWAI1 See*memo Lives*saved





Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits






1 CDOT/Calculation LEAF*program1 See*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUI1 GAO Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense1 Policy*Suggestion LEAF*Administration*Fee1 Policy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAF

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

1 DMV Proceeds*from*DWAI1 See*memo Lives*saved






1 CDOT/Calculation LEAF*program1 See*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUI1 GAO Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

1 DMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense1 Policy*Suggestion LEAF*Administration*Fee1 Policy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAF1 DMV Proceeds*from*DWAI1 See*memo Lives*saved

Benefits

Estimate&per&unit In&2015&Dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate

A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70

A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00$600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00$1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00$20/DUI $20.00 26000 $520,000.00$180/DUI $180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00$200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00$5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 26 $143,000,000.00

Total&CostTotal&BenefitNet&Benefit


A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70

A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00$600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00$1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00$20/DUI $20.00 26000 $520,000.00$180/DUI $180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00

$200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00$5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 26 $143,000,000.00



A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70

A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00$600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00

$1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00$20/DUI $20.00 26000 $520,000.00$180/DUI $180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00$200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00$5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 26 $143,000,000.00



A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00

A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00

$600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00$1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00$20/DUI $20.00 26000 $520,000.00$180/DUI $180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00$200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00$5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 26 $143,000,000.00



A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70


Total&Cost

Total&BenefitNet&Benefit


A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70

A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00$600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00$1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00$20/DUI $20.00 26000 $520,000.00$180/DUI $180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00

$200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00$5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 26 $143,000,000.00



A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70




A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 A$2,802,800.00A$475.50 A$524.95 26000 A$13,648,780.70

A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1 A$280,280.00$600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333 $13,866,400.00

$1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00$20/DUI $20.00 26000 $520,000.00$180/DUI $180.00 26000 $4,680,000.00$200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000 $21,000,000.00$5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 26 $143,000,000.00


Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe Source LEAF&Increase)Y1(#*of*yrs) LowAEnd*Estimate

A$2,802,800.00 1 CDOT/CalculationA$13,648,780.70 1 See*memo

A$280,280.00 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 1 DMV

$520,000.00 1 Policy*Suggestion$4,680,000.00 1 Policy*Suggestion$21,000,000.00 1 DMV

$143,000,000.00 1 See*memoA$16,731,860.70$193,900,150.00$177,168,289.30

Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe Source LEAF&Increase)Y2LowAEnd*Estimate


A$284,736.45 1 GAO$14,086,875.76 1 DMV$11,006,006.63 1 DMV


$145,273,700.00 1 See*memoA$16,997,897.29$196,983,162.39$179,985,265.10



A$289,263.76 1 GAO$14,310,857.08 1 DMV$11,181,002.13 1 DMV

$536,667.46 1 Policy*Suggestion$4,830,007.15 1 Policy*Suggestion

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$21,673,109.01 1 DMV$147,583,551.83 1 See*memoA$17,268,163.86$200,115,194.67$182,847,030.81



A$293,863.06 1 GAO$14,538,399.71 1 DMV$11,358,780.06 1 DMV


$149,930,130.30 1 See*memoA$17,542,727.66$203,297,026.26$185,754,298.60



A$298,535.48 1 GAO$14,769,560.27 1 DMV$11,539,384.67 1 DMV


$152,314,019.38 1 See*memoA$17,821,657.03$206,529,448.98$188,707,791.95



A$303,282.19 1 GAO$15,004,396.28 1 DMV

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$11,722,860.88 1 DMV$562,675.68 1 Policy*Suggestion

$5,064,081.13 1 Policy*Suggestion$22,723,440.96 1 DMV

$154,735,812.28 1 See*memoA$18,105,021.38$209,813,267.22$191,708,245.84



A$308,104.38 1 GAO$15,242,966.18 1 DMV$11,909,254.37 1 DMV


$157,196,111.70 1 See*memoA$18,392,891.22$213,149,298.17$194,756,406.95



A$313,003.24 1 GAO$15,485,329.34 1 DMV$12,098,611.52 1 DMV


$159,695,529.88 1 See*memoA$18,685,338.19$216,538,372.01$197,853,033.82


A$3,179,799.90 1 CDOT/Calculation

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

A$15,484,655.17 1 See*memoA$317,979.99 1 GAO

$15,731,546.08 1 DMV$12,290,979.44 1 DMV


$162,234,688.80 1 See*memoA$18,982,435.07$219,981,332.12$200,998,897.06



A$323,035.87 1 GAO$15,981,677.66 1 DMV$12,486,406.01 1 DMV


$164,814,220.35 1 See*memoA$19,284,255.78$223,479,035.30$204,194,779.52



A$328,172.14 1 GAO$16,235,786.33 1 DMV$12,684,939.87 1 DMV


$167,434,766.46 1 See*memoA$19,590,875.45$227,032,351.97$207,441,476.52

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits



A$333,390.08 1 GAO$16,493,935.34 1 DMV$12,886,630.41 1 DMV


$170,096,979.24 1 See*memoA$19,902,370.37$230,642,166.36$210,739,795.99



A$338,690.98 1 GAO$16,756,188.91 1 DMV$13,091,527.84 1 DMV


$172,801,521.21 1 See*memoA$20,218,818.06$234,309,376.81$214,090,558.75



A$344,076.17 1 GAO$17,022,612.31 1 DMV$13,299,683.13 1 DMV


$175,549,065.40 1 See*memoA$20,540,297.27

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$238,034,895.90$217,494,598.63



A$349,546.98 1 GAO$17,293,271.85 1 DMV$13,511,148.09 1 DMV


$178,340,295.54 1 See*memoA$20,866,887.99$241,819,650.74$220,952,762.75



A$355,104.78 1 GAO$17,568,234.87 1 DMV$13,725,975.34 1 DMV


$181,175,906.24 1 See*memoA$21,198,671.51$245,664,583.19$224,465,911.68



A$360,750.94 1 GAO$17,847,569.80 1 DMV$13,944,218.35 1 DMV

$669,296.74 1 Policy*Suggestion$6,023,670.65 1 Policy*Suggestion

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$27,029,291.37 1 DMV$184,056,603.15 1 See*memoA$21,535,730.39$249,570,650.06$228,034,919.67



A$366,486.88 1 GAO$18,131,346.16 1 DMV$14,165,931.42 1 DMV


$186,983,103.14 1 See*memoA$21,878,148.50$253,538,823.40$231,660,674.90



A$372,314.02 1 GAO$18,419,634.57 1 DMV$14,391,169.73 1 DMV


$189,956,134.48 1 See*memoA$22,226,011.06$257,570,090.69$235,344,079.63



A$378,233.82 1 GAO$18,712,506.76 1 DMV

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$14,619,989.33 1 DMV$701,732.50 1 Policy*Suggestion

$6,315,592.48 1 Policy*Suggestion$28,339,197.04 1 DMV

$192,976,437.02 1 See*memoA$22,579,404.64$261,665,455.13$239,086,050.49

Benefits

Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unit In&2015&Dollars Number&of&Units

LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50 A$524.95 26000Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667LEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUI $20.00 26000Proceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI $180.00 26000Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000Lives*saved $5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 13




LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50 A$524.95 26000Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667LEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUI $20.00 26000Proceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI $180.00 26000

Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000Lives*saved $5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 13






LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50 A$524.95 26000Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333

Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667LEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUI $20.00 26000Proceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI $180.00 26000Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000Lives*saved $5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 13






LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1

Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50 A$524.95 26000Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667LEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUI $20.00 26000Proceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI $180.00 26000Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000Lives*saved $5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 13










LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50 A$524.95 26000Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667LEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUI $20.00 26000Proceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI $180.00 26000

Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000Lives*saved $5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 13






LEAF*program A$2,800,000.00 A$2,802,800.00 1Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50 A$524.95 26000Increased*LEAF*administrative*costs A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333

Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667LEAF*Administration*Fee $20/DUI $20.00 26000Proceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI $180.00 26000Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI $350.00 60000Lives*saved $5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 13

Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe Source(#*of*yrs)

A$2,802,800.00 A$2,802,800.00 1 CDOT/CalculationA$13,648,780.70 A$13,648,780.70 1 See*memo

A$280,280.00 A$280,280.00 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $13,866,400.00 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $10,833,750.00 1 DMV

$520,000.00 $520,000.00 1 Policy*Suggestion$4,680,000.00 $4,680,000.00 1 Policy*Suggestion$21,000,000.00 $21,000,000.00 1 DMV$71,500,000.00 $71,500,000.00 1 See*memo


Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe Source


A$280,280.00 A$284,736.45 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $14,086,875.76 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $11,006,006.63 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$289,263.76 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $14,310,857.08 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $11,181,002.13 1 DMV

$520,000.00 $536,667.46 1 Policy*Suggestion$4,680,000.00 $4,830,007.15 1 Policy*Suggestion

$21,000,000.00 $21,673,109.01 1 DMV$71,500,000.00 $73,791,775.92 1 See*memo




A$280,280.00 A$293,863.06 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $14,538,399.71 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $11,358,780.06 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$298,535.48 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $14,769,560.27 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $11,539,384.67 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$303,282.19 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $15,004,396.28 1 DMV

$10,833,750.00 $11,722,860.88 1 DMV$520,000.00 $562,675.68 1 Policy*Suggestion

$4,680,000.00 $5,064,081.13 1 Policy*Suggestion$21,000,000.00 $22,723,440.96 1 DMV$71,500,000.00 $77,367,906.14 1 See*memo




A$280,280.00 A$308,104.38 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $15,242,966.18 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $11,909,254.37 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$313,003.24 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $15,485,329.34 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $12,098,611.52 1 DMV




A$2,802,800.00 A$3,179,799.90 1 CDOT/Calculation

A$13,648,780.70 A$15,484,655.17 1 See*memoA$280,280.00 A$317,979.99 1 GAO

$13,866,400.00 $15,731,546.08 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $12,290,979.44 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$323,035.87 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $15,981,677.66 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $12,486,406.01 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$328,172.14 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $16,235,786.33 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $12,684,939.87 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$333,390.08 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $16,493,935.34 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $12,886,630.41 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$338,690.98 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $16,756,188.91 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $13,091,527.84 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$344,076.17 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $17,022,612.31 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $13,299,683.13 1 DMV


Total&Cost A$20,540,297.27




A$280,280.00 A$349,546.98 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $17,293,271.85 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $13,511,148.09 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$355,104.78 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $17,568,234.87 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $13,725,975.34 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$360,750.94 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $17,847,569.80 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $13,944,218.35 1 DMV

$520,000.00 $669,296.74 1 Policy*Suggestion$4,680,000.00 $6,023,670.65 1 Policy*Suggestion

$21,000,000.00 $27,029,291.37 1 DMV$71,500,000.00 $92,028,301.57 1 See*memo




A$280,280.00 A$366,486.88 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $18,131,346.16 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $14,165,931.42 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$372,314.02 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $18,419,634.57 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $14,391,169.73 1 DMV





A$280,280.00 A$378,233.82 1 GAO$13,866,400.00 $18,712,506.76 1 DMV

$10,833,750.00 $14,619,989.33 1 DMV$520,000.00 $701,732.50 1 Policy*Suggestion

$4,680,000.00 $6,315,592.48 1 Policy*Suggestion$21,000,000.00 $28,339,197.04 1 DMV$71,500,000.00 $96,488,218.51 1 See*memo




0 $16,731,861 $16,731,861

1 $16,997,897 $15,637,253

2 $17,268,164 $14,846,622

3 $17,542,728 $14,095,965

4 $17,821,657 $13,383,263

5 $18,105,021 $12,706,595

6 $18,392,891 $12,064,140

7 $18,685,338 $11,454,168

8 $18,982,435 $10,875,037

9 $19,284,256 $10,325,187

10 $19,590,875 $9,803,138

11 $19,902,370 $9,307,484

12 $20,218,818 $8,836,890

13 $20,540,297 $8,390,091

14 $20,866,888 $7,965,881

15 $21,198,672 $7,563,120

16 $21,535,730 $7,180,723

17 $21,878,149 $6,817,661

18 $22,226,011 $6,472,955

19 $22,579,405 $6,145,677

20 $0 $0

$390,349,463 $210,603,712

$1,643,360,729

105.79

769.49%

0.19

0.10


StartLUp


Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansIncrease$in$LEAFAAMidpoint (2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Date:/April/22,/2016Constant'Dollars'Year'2015






Notes:



Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$

A$16,731,861

$129,596,532

$123,044,034

$116,822,836

$110,916,186

$105,308,181

$99,983,721

$94,928,469

$90,128,814

$85,571,834

$81,245,258$77,137,437

$73,237,311

A$40,000,000

A$20,000,000

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Increase&in&LEAF))Midpoint))NPV&TImeline

7.00%


Discount$Rate


Net$Disc.$$$Flows$$ *Year

$0 $0 1.000 L$16,731,861 L$16,731,861 0

$155,400,150 $145,233,785 0.935 $138,668,289 $129,596,532 1

$157,871,012 $137,890,656 0.873 $140,873,115 $123,044,034 2

$160,381,161 $130,918,802 0.816 $143,112,998 $116,822,836 3

$162,931,222 $124,299,449 0.763 $145,388,494 $110,916,186 4

$165,521,828 $118,014,776 0.713 $147,700,171 $105,308,181 5

$168,153,625 $112,047,861 0.666 $150,048,604 $99,983,721 6

$170,827,268 $106,382,637 0.623 $152,434,377 $94,928,469 7

$173,543,422 $101,003,851 0.582 $154,858,083 $90,128,814 8

$176,302,762 $95,897,021 0.544 $157,320,327 $85,571,834 9

$179,105,976 $91,048,396 0.508 $159,821,720 $81,245,258 10

$181,953,761 $86,444,921 0.475 $162,362,886 $77,137,437 11

$184,846,826 $82,074,201 0.444 $164,944,455 $73,237,311 12

$187,785,890 $77,924,468 0.415 $167,567,072 $69,534,378 13

$190,771,686 $73,984,549 0.388 $170,231,389 $66,018,668 14

$193,804,956 $70,243,835 0.362 $172,938,068 $62,680,714 15

$196,886,455 $66,692,254 0.339 $175,687,783 $59,511,531 16

$200,016,949 $63,320,244 0.317 $178,481,219 $56,502,583 17

$203,197,219 $60,118,725 0.296 $181,319,070 $53,645,770 18

$206,428,054 $57,079,077 0.277 $184,202,043 $50,933,400 19

$206,428,054 $53,344,932 0.258 $183,848,650 $47,509,985 20

PV/Net/Cash/Flows/0L20$1,637,525,782

$3,622,158,278 $1,853,964,441 PV/Net/Cash/Flows/1L20$1,654,257,642

Avg./Net/Disc/$/1L20 $80,245,322

Avg./Net/UnDisc./$/1L20$162,796,870





Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansIncrease$in$LEAFAAHighpoint

Date:/April/22,/2016Constant'Dollars'Year'2015



Notes:


(2)/Spreadsheet/automatically/computes/Net/Present/Value/(NPV),/Profitability/Index/(PI),/IRR,/and/two/Payback/Periods.(3)/You/may/need/to/add/together/certain/Costs/and/Benefits/as/there/is/one/line/per/year/for/this/data/for/each/year./Just/keep/track/of/your/numbers/and/how/you/added/these/together/for/input/on/the/Spreadsheet./(4)/This/example/uses/Constant/Dollars/and/OMB/Circular/AL94/Real/Discount/Rate/of/7%.//This/rate/can/be/changed/in/cell/J5.

Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$





$77,137,437$73,237,311

$69,534,378$66,018,668

$62,680,714$59,511,531

$56,502,583$53,645,770

$50,933,400$47,509,985

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


NPV&TImeline

A$16,731,861

A$50,000,000

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000


$Cost$$ PV$$$$$$$$$$Cost$$ *Benefit$$

$16,731,861 $16,731,861 $0

$16,997,897 $15,637,253 $193,900,150

$17,268,164 $14,846,622 $196,983,162

$17,542,728 $14,095,965 $200,115,195

$17,821,657 $13,383,263 $203,297,026

$18,105,021 $12,706,595 $206,529,449

$18,392,891 $12,064,140 $209,813,267

$18,685,338 $11,454,168 $213,149,298

$18,982,435 $10,875,037 $216,538,372

$19,284,256 $10,325,187 $219,981,332

$19,590,875 $9,803,138 $223,479,035

$19,902,370 $9,307,484 $227,032,352

$20,218,818 $8,836,890 $230,642,166

$20,540,297 $8,390,091 $234,309,377

$20,866,888 $7,965,881 $238,034,896

$21,198,672 $7,563,120 $241,819,651

$21,535,730 $7,180,723 $245,664,583

$21,878,149 $6,817,661 $249,570,650

$22,226,011 $6,472,955 $253,538,823

$22,579,405 $6,145,677 $257,570,091

$0 $0 $257,570,091

$390,349,463 $210,603,712 $4,519,538,967

$2,102,675,800

124.57

984.54%

0.15

0.08

StartLUp


Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansIncrease$in$LEAFAAHighpoint (2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Date:/April/22,/2016Constant'Dollars'Year'2015


Notes:



Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$





A$16,731,861

$165,577,840

$157,206,101

$149,257,643

$141,711,065

$134,546,048

$127,743,299

$121,284,502

$115,152,267

$109,330,082$103,802,272

$98,553,951$93,570,990

$88,839,971

$50,000,000

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


Increase&in&LEAF))Highpoint))NPV&TImeline

7.00%

PV$$$$$$Benefit$$

Discount$Rate



$0 1.000 L$16,731,861 L$16,731,861 0

$181,215,093 0.935 $177,168,289 $165,577,840 1

$172,052,723 0.873 $179,985,265 $157,206,101 2

$163,353,609 0.816 $182,847,031 $149,257,643 3

$155,094,328 0.763 $185,754,299 $141,711,065 4

$147,252,643 0.713 $188,707,792 $134,546,048 5

$139,807,439 0.666 $191,708,246 $127,743,299 6

$132,738,670 0.623 $194,756,407 $121,284,502 7

$126,027,304 0.582 $197,853,034 $115,152,267 8

$119,655,269 0.544 $200,998,897 $109,330,082 9

$113,605,409 0.508 $204,194,780 $103,802,272 10

$107,861,435 0.475 $207,441,477 $98,553,951 11

$102,407,880 0.444 $210,739,796 $93,570,990 12

$97,230,061 0.415 $214,090,559 $88,839,971 13

$92,314,037 0.388 $217,494,599 $84,348,155 14

$87,646,570 0.362 $220,952,763 $80,083,449 15

$83,215,094 0.339 $224,465,912 $76,034,370 16

$79,007,676 0.317 $228,034,920 $72,190,016 17

$75,012,989 0.296 $231,660,675 $68,540,035 18

$71,220,276 0.277 $235,344,080 $65,074,599 19

$66,561,006 0.258 $234,990,686 $60,726,059 20

PV/Net/Cash/Flows/0L20$891,763,866

$2,313,279,512 PV/Net/Cash/Flows/1L20$1,947,994,873

Avg./Net/Disc/$/1L20 $102,526,046

Avg./Net/UnDisc./$/1L20$208,001,117

StartLUp






Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansIncrease$in$LEAFAALowpoint


Cost$Description

Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$






Notes:


$88,839,971$84,348,155

$80,083,449$76,034,370

$72,190,016$68,540,035

$65,074,599$60,726,059

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

A$16,731,861

$98,755,411

A$40,000,000

A$20,000,000

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

1 2


$Cost$$ PV$$$$$$$$$$Cost$$ *Benefit$$ PV$$$$$$

Benefit$$$16,731,861 $16,731,861 0 $0

$16,997,897 $15,637,253 $122,400,150 $114,392,664

$17,268,164 $14,846,622 $124,346,312 $108,608,885

$17,542,728 $14,095,965 $126,323,419 $103,117,539

$17,821,657 $13,383,263 $128,331,961 $97,903,839

$18,105,021 $12,706,595 $130,372,439 $92,953,747

$18,392,891 $12,064,140 $132,445,361 $88,253,936

$18,685,338 $11,454,168 $134,551,242 $83,791,751

$18,982,435 $10,875,037 $136,690,607 $79,555,178

$19,284,256 $10,325,187 $138,863,988 $75,532,809

$19,590,875 $9,803,138 $141,071,925 $71,713,813

$19,902,370 $9,307,484 $143,314,969 $68,087,909

$20,218,818 $8,836,890 $145,593,677 $64,645,334

$20,540,297 $8,390,091 $147,908,616 $61,376,817

$20,866,888 $7,965,881 $150,260,363 $58,273,559

$21,198,672 $7,563,120 $152,649,503 $55,327,205

$21,535,730 $7,180,723 $155,076,630 $52,529,820

$21,878,149 $6,817,661 $157,542,348 $49,873,873

$22,226,011 $6,472,955 $160,047,272 $47,352,213

$22,579,405 $6,145,677 $162,592,023 $44,958,049

$0 $0 $162,592,023 $42,016,869

$390,349,463 $210,603,712 $2,852,974,830 $1,345,873,145

$1,135,269,433

80.61

585.17%

0.24

0.13

StartLUp


Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansIncrease$in$LEAFAALowpoint (2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Date:/April/22,/2016Constant'Dollars'Year'2015


Net/Present/Value/$







$98,755,411

$93,762,263

$89,021,573

$84,520,576

$80,247,152

$76,189,796

$72,337,583$68,680,141

$65,207,622$61,910,676

$58,780,425$55,808,443

$52,986,727$50,307,678

$47,764,084

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


Increase&in&LEAF))Low

point))NPV&TImeline

7.00%

Discount$Rate


Net$Disc.$$$Flows$$

1.000 L$16,731,861 L$16,731,861

0.935 $105,668,289 $98,755,411

0.873 $107,348,415 $93,762,263

0.816 $109,055,255 $89,021,573

0.763 $110,789,233 $84,520,576

0.713 $112,550,782 $80,247,152

0.666 $114,340,340 $76,189,796

0.623 $116,158,351 $72,337,583

0.582 $118,005,269 $68,680,141

0.544 $119,881,553 $65,207,622

0.508 $121,787,669 $61,910,676

0.475 $123,724,093 $58,780,425

0.444 $125,691,306 $55,808,443

0.415 $127,689,798 $52,986,727

0.388 $129,720,066 $50,307,678

0.362 $131,782,615 $47,764,084

0.339 $133,877,959 $45,349,096

0.317 $136,006,618 $43,056,212

0.296 $138,169,123 $40,879,258

0.277 $140,366,012 $38,812,372

0.258 $140,012,619 $36,181,921



Avg./Net/Disc/$/1L20 $66,345,211

Avg./Net/UnDisc./$/1L20$124,050,372




$47,764,084$45,349,096

$43,056,212$40,879,258

$38,812,372$36,181,921

16 17 18 19 20 21


BAC&Reduction)Y1 Cost&Item/Measure Estimate&per&unitMidpoint*Estimate

LEAF*program A$53.46Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50Decreased*alcohol*tax*revenue A$1,746,765.00Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUIProceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUIProceeds*from*LEAF $90/DUIProceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAILives*saved $5.5*million/life





Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs







Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs







Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs





Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

In&2015&Dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe(#*of*yrs)

A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$2,928,057.66 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$28,752,206.46 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$1,802,661.48 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $36,883,200.00 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $10,833,750.00 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $4,929,390.00 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20

$5,500,000.00 32.5 $178,750,000.00 $178,750,000.00 1Total&Cost A$33,482,925.60Total&Benefit $231,396,340.00Net&Benefit $197,913,414.40

In&2015&Dollars Number&of&Units Total&Estimate Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe

A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$2,974,613.78 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$29,209,366.54 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$1,831,323.80 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $37,469,642.88 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,006,006.63 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,007,767.30 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,021,910.14 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$29,673,795.47 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$1,860,441.85 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $38,065,410.20 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,181,002.13 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,087,390.80 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20

$5,500,000.00 32.5 $178,750,000.00 $184,479,439.79 1Total&Cost A$34,556,147.45



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,069,958.51 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$30,145,608.82 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$1,890,022.87 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $38,670,650.22 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,358,780.06 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,168,280.31 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,118,770.85 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$30,624,924.00 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$1,920,074.23 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $39,285,513.56 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,539,384.67 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,250,455.97 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,168,359.30 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$31,111,860.29 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$1,950,603.42 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $39,910,153.23 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,722,860.88 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,333,938.22 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20

$5,500,000.00 32.5 $178,750,000.00 $193,419,765.36 1Total&Cost A$36,230,823.01



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,218,736.22 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$31,606,538.87 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$1,981,618.01 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $40,544,724.66 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $11,909,254.37 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,418,747.84 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,269,914.12 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$32,109,082.84 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,013,125.74 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $41,189,385.79 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,098,611.52 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,504,905.93 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,321,905.76 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$32,619,617.25 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,045,134.44 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $41,844,297.02 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,290,979.44 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,592,433.93 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20

$5,500,000.00 32.5 $178,750,000.00 $202,793,361.00 1Total&Cost A$37,986,657.45



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,374,724.06 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$33,138,269.17 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,077,652.07 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $42,509,621.34 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,486,406.01 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,681,353.63 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,428,382.17 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$33,665,167.65 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,110,686.74 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $43,185,524.32 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,684,939.87 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,771,687.16 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,482,893.45 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$34,200,443.81 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,144,246.66 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $43,872,174.16 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $12,886,630.41 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,863,456.98 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20

$5,500,000.00 32.5 $178,750,000.00 $212,621,224.05 1Total&Cost A$39,827,583.92



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,538,271.45 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$34,744,230.87 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,178,340.18 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $44,569,741.73 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,091,527.84 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $5,956,685.95 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,594,529.97 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$35,296,664.14 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,212,975.79 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $45,278,400.62 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,299,683.13 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $6,051,397.26 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,651,683.00 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$35,857,881.10 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,248,162.11 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $45,998,327.19 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,511,148.09 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $6,147,614.47 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20

$5,500,000.00 32.5 $178,750,000.00 $222,925,369.42 1Total&Cost A$41,757,726.20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,709,744.76 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$36,428,021.41 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,283,907.88 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $46,729,700.59 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,725,975.34 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $6,245,361.54 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,768,729.70 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$37,007,226.95 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,320,222.02 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $47,472,702.83 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $13,944,218.35 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $6,344,662.79 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,828,652.50 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$37,595,641.86 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,357,113.55 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $48,227,518.81 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $14,165,931.42 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $6,445,542.93 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20

$5,500,000.00 32.5 $178,750,000.00 $233,728,878.92 1Total&Cost A$43,781,407.91



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,889,528.07 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$38,193,412.56 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,394,591.65 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $48,994,336.36 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $14,391,169.73 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $6,548,027.06 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20



A$53.46 54771 A$2,928,057.66 A$3,951,371.57 1A$524.95 54771 A$28,752,206.46 A$38,800,687.82 1

A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48 A$2,432,665.66 1$800.00 46104 $36,883,200.00 $49,773,346.31 1

$1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00 $14,619,989.33 1$90.00 54771 $4,929,390.00 $6,652,140.69 1$350.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 20


Source BAC&Reduction)Y1 Cost&Item/MeasureHighAend*Estimate

Vaughan/Calculation LEAF*programSee*memo Lost*tax*revenueAADUISee*memo Decreased*alcohol*tax*revenueDMV Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offenseDMV Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*OffensePolicy*Suggestion Proceeds*from*LEAFDMV Proceeds*from*DWAISee*memo Lives*saved





Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs







Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs







Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits







Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs





Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs


A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94

A$1,746,765.00 A$1,802,661.48 1 A$1,802,661.48$600A$1000/DUI $800.00 77333 $61,866,400.00$1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667 $10,833,750.00$180/DUI $90.00 86000 $7,740,000.00$200A$500/DWAI $350.00 0 $0.00$5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 50 $275,000,000.00



A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94




A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94


Total&Cost



A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94




A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94




A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94


Total&Cost



A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94




A$53.46 A$53.46 86000 A$4,597,560.00A$475.50 A$524.95 86000 A$45,145,966.94



Population&Adjustment&(n/a) Timeframe Source BAC&Reduction)Y1(#*of*yrs) LowAend*Estimate

A$4,597,560.00 1 Vaughan/CalculationA$45,145,966.94 1 See*memoA$1,802,661.48 1 See*memo$61,866,400.00 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 1 DMV$7,740,000.00 1 Policy*Suggestion

$0.00 20 DMV$275,000,000.00 1 See*memoA$51,546,188.42$355,440,150.00$303,893,961.58



$0.00 20 DMV$279,372,500.00 1 See*memoA$52,365,772.82$361,091,648.39$308,725,875.57



$0.00 20 DMV$283,814,522.75 1 See*memoA$53,198,388.61

Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$366,833,005.59$313,634,616.99



$0.00 20 DMV$288,327,173.66 1 See*memoA$54,044,242.99$372,665,650.38$318,621,407.40



$0.00 20 DMV$292,911,575.72 1 See*memoA$54,903,546.45$378,591,034.22$323,687,487.77



$0.00 20 DMV$297,568,869.78 1 See*memoA$55,776,512.84

Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

$384,610,631.67$328,834,118.83



$0.00 20 DMV$302,300,214.81 1 See*memoA$56,663,359.39$390,725,940.71$334,062,581.32



$0.00 20 DMV$307,106,788.22 1 See*memoA$57,564,306.81$396,938,483.17$339,374,176.36



$0.00 20 DMV$311,989,786.15 1 See*memoA$58,479,579.29

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$403,249,805.05$344,770,225.77



$0.00 20 DMV$316,950,423.75 1 See*memoA$59,409,404.60$409,661,476.95$350,252,072.36



$0.00 20 DMV$321,989,935.49 1 See*memoA$60,354,014.13$416,175,094.44$355,821,080.31



$0.00 20 DMV$327,109,575.47 1 See*memoA$61,313,642.95

Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

$422,792,278.44$361,478,635.48



$0.00 20 DMV$332,310,617.72 1 See*memoA$62,288,529.88$429,514,675.66$367,226,145.79



$0.00 20 DMV$337,594,356.54 1 See*memoA$63,278,917.50$436,343,959.01$373,065,041.51



$0.00 20 DMV$342,962,106.81 1 See*memoA$64,285,052.29

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$443,281,827.96$378,996,775.67



$0.00 20 DMV$348,415,204.31 1 See*memoA$65,307,184.62$450,330,009.02$385,022,824.40



$0.00 20 DMV$353,955,006.05 1 See*memoA$66,345,568.86$457,490,256.16$391,144,687.31



$0.00 20 DMV$359,582,890.65 1 See*memoA$67,400,463.40

Benefits

Costs

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs

$464,764,351.24$397,363,887.83



$0.00 20 DMV$365,300,258.61 1 See*memoA$68,472,130.77$472,154,104.42$403,681,973.65



$0.00 20 DMV$371,108,532.72 1 See*memoA$69,560,837.65$479,661,354.68$410,100,517.03

Costs

Benefits

Benefits

Costs


LEAF*program A$53.46 A$53.46 26000Lost*tax*revenueAADUI A$475.50 A$524.95 26000Decreased*alcohol*tax*revenue A$1,746,765.00 A$1,802,661.48 1Proceeds*from*DUI*1st*offense $600A$1000/DUI $800.00 17333Proceeds*from*DUI*mult.*Offense $1000A$1500/DUI $1,250.00 8667Proceeds*from*LEAF $180/DUI $180.00 26000Proceeds*from*DWAI $200A$500/DWAI $350.00 0Lives*saved $5.5*million/life $5,500,000.00 7.5






A$1,389,960.00 A$1,389,960.00 1 Vaughan/CalculationA$13,648,780.70 A$13,648,780.70 1 See*memoA$1,802,661.48 A$1,802,661.48 1 See*memo$13,866,400.00 $13,866,400.00 1 DMV$10,833,750.00 $10,833,750.00 1 DMV$4,680,000.00 $4,680,000.00 1 Policy*Suggestion

$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $41,250,000.00 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $41,905,875.00 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $42,572,178.41 1 See*memo

Total&Cost A$17,381,216.45




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $43,249,076.05 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $43,936,736.36 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $44,635,330.47 1 See*memo

Total&Cost A$18,223,552.78




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $45,345,032.22 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $46,066,018.23 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $46,798,467.92 1 See*memo

Total&Cost A$19,106,710.79




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $47,542,563.56 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $48,298,490.32 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $49,066,436.32 1 See*memo

Total&Cost A$20,032,668.80




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $49,846,592.66 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $50,639,153.48 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $51,444,316.02 1 See*memo

Total&Cost A$21,003,501.00




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $52,262,280.65 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $53,093,250.91 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $53,937,433.60 1 See*memo

Total&Cost A$22,021,382.11




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $54,795,038.79 1 See*memo




$0.00 $0.00 20 DMV$41,250,000.00 $55,666,279.91 1 See*memo


YearHigh Low Mid

1 86000 26000 458262 86000 26000 736783 86000 26000 368864 86000 26000 681655 86000 26000 615006 86000 26000 388747 86000 26000 548228 86000 26000 834169 86000 26000 7847910 86000 26000 6153211 86000 26000 2691612 86000 26000 4023913 86000 26000 7572814 86000 26000 5573015 86000 26000 7970316 86000 26000 2548717 86000 26000 3512918 86000 26000 6523119 86000 26000 2528920 86000 26000 62794

Average 86000 26000 54771

Projected*#*of*DUIS*(not*accounting*population)

Mid*Less*Rep.*Off.371596501128219594985283330207541277474969812528651824931572670614706371036168202646256564166224615546104

Projected*#*of*DUIS*(not*accounting*population)



0 $33,482,926 $33,482,926

1 $34,015,304 $31,292,454

2 $34,556,147 $29,710,284

3 $35,105,590 $28,208,110

4 $35,663,769 $26,781,887

5 $36,230,823 $25,427,774

6 $36,806,893 $24,142,127

7 $37,392,123 $22,921,483

8 $37,986,657 $21,762,556

9 $38,590,645 $20,662,225

10 $39,204,237 $19,617,527

11 $39,827,584 $18,625,650

12 $40,460,843 $17,683,924

13 $41,104,170 $16,789,811

14 $41,757,726 $15,940,906

15 $42,421,674 $15,134,922

16 $43,096,179 $14,369,689

17 $43,781,408 $13,643,146

18 $44,477,532 $12,953,339

19 $45,184,725 $12,298,408

20 $0 $0

$781,146,955 $421,449,147

$2,340,432,697

75.49

547.36%

0.27

0.13


/Reduce/Violence,/etc.


Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansBAC$Reduction$(from$.08%$to$.05%)AAMidpoint (2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Date:/April/22,/2016Constant'Dollars'Year'2015

StartLUp

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

Notes:



Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$





A$33,482,926

$184,965,808

$175,613,798

$166,734,633

$158,304,406

$150,300,417

$142,701,115

$135,486,040

$128,635,765

$122,131,844

$115,956,767$110,093,906

$104,527,476

A$50,000,000

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


BAC&DecreaseMidpoint))NPV&TImeline

7.00%


Discount$Rate



L$/////////////////// $0 1.000 L$33,482,926 L$33,482,926 0$231,396,340 $216,258,262 0.935 $197,913,414 $184,965,808 1$235,075,542 $205,324,082 0.873 $201,060,238 $175,613,798 2$238,813,243 $194,942,743 0.816 $204,257,095 $166,734,633 3$242,610,373 $185,086,292 0.763 $207,504,783 $158,304,406 4$246,467,878 $175,728,191 0.713 $210,804,109 $150,300,417 5$250,386,718 $166,843,242 0.666 $214,155,895 $142,701,115 6$254,367,866 $158,407,523 0.623 $217,560,973 $135,486,040 7$258,412,316 $150,398,320 0.582 $221,020,193 $128,635,765 8$262,521,071 $142,794,069 0.544 $224,534,414 $122,131,844 9$266,695,156 $135,574,294 0.508 $228,104,511 $115,956,767 10$270,935,609 $128,719,556 0.475 $231,731,373 $110,093,906 11$275,243,486 $122,211,399 0.444 $235,415,902 $104,527,476 12$279,619,857 $116,032,300 0.415 $239,159,015 $99,242,488 13$284,065,813 $110,165,620 0.388 $242,961,643 $94,224,714 14$288,582,459 $104,595,564 0.362 $246,824,733 $89,460,642 15$293,170,920 $99,307,134 0.339 $250,749,246 $84,937,445 16$297,832,338 $94,286,091 0.317 $254,736,159 $80,642,944 17$302,567,872 $89,518,916 0.296 $258,786,464 $76,565,577 18$307,378,701 $84,992,772 0.277 $262,901,169 $72,694,364 19$312,266,023 $80,695,474 0.258 $267,081,298 $69,018,883 20


$5,398,409,582 $2,761,881,845 PV/Net/Cash/Flows/1L20$2,362,239,031

Avg./Net/Disc/$/1L20 $114,593,328

Avg./Net/UnDisc./$/1L20$232,597,327






Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansBAC$Reduction$(from$.08%$to$.05%)AAHighpoint


(3)/You/may/need/to/add/together/certain/Costs/and/Benefits/as/there/is/one/line/per/year/for/this/data/for/each/year./Just/keep/track/of/your/numbers/and/how/you/added/these/together/for/input/on/the/Spreadsheet./(4)/This/example/uses/Constant/Dollars/and/OMB/Circular/AL94/Real/Discount/Rate/of/7%.//This/rate/can/be/changed/in/cell/J5.

Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$





Notes:


(2)/Spreadsheet/automatically/computes/Net/Present/Value/(NPV),/Profitability/Index/(PI),/IRR,/and/two/Payback/Periods.

$110,093,906$104,527,476

$99,242,488$94,224,714

$89,460,642$84,937,445

$80,642,944$76,565,577

$72,694,364$69,018,883

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21


NPV&TImeline

A$100,000,000

A$50,000,000

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000


$Cost$$ PV$$$$$$$$$$Cost$$ *Benefit$$

$51,546,188 $51,546,188 L$///////////////////

$52,365,773 $48,174,008 $355,440,150

$53,198,389 $45,738,294 $361,091,648

$54,044,243 $43,425,732 $366,833,006

$54,903,546 $41,230,094 $372,665,650

$55,776,513 $39,145,470 $378,591,034

$56,663,359 $37,166,246 $384,610,632

$57,564,307 $35,287,092 $390,725,941

$58,479,579 $33,502,951 $396,938,483

$59,409,405 $31,809,016 $403,249,805

$60,354,014 $30,200,729 $409,661,477

$61,313,643 $28,673,757 $416,175,094

$62,288,530 $27,223,991 $422,792,278

$63,278,918 $25,847,525 $429,514,676

$64,285,052 $24,540,655 $436,343,959

$65,307,185 $23,299,861 $443,281,828

$66,345,569 $22,121,803 $450,330,009

$67,400,463 $21,003,308 $457,490,256

$68,472,131 $19,941,365 $464,764,351

$69,560,838 $18,933,115 $472,154,104

$0 $0 $479,661,355

$1,202,557,644 $648,811,201 $8,292,315,737

$3,261,435,729

75.29

545.93%

0.27

0.13



Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansBAC$Reduction$(from$.08%$to$.05%)AAHighpoint (2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Date:/April/22,/2016Constant'Dollars'Year'2015

StartLUp


Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$





Notes:



A$51,546,188

$284,013,048

$269,653,136

$256,019,272

$243,074,746

$230,784,705

$219,116,058

$208,037,386$197,518,860

$187,532,159$178,050,393

$169,048,032$160,500,837

$152,385,795

$100,000,000

$50,000,000

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


BAC&DecreaseHighpoint))NPV&TImeline

7.00%

PV$$$$$$Benefit$$

Discount$Rate



$0 1.000 L$51,546,188 L$51,546,188 0$332,187,056 0.935 $303,893,962 $284,013,048 1$315,391,430 0.873 $308,725,876 $269,653,136 2$299,445,004 0.816 $313,634,617 $256,019,272 3$284,304,840 0.763 $318,621,407 $243,074,746 4$269,930,175 0.713 $323,687,488 $230,784,705 5$256,282,304 0.666 $328,834,119 $219,116,058 6$243,324,479 0.623 $334,062,581 $208,037,386 7$231,021,811 0.582 $339,374,176 $197,518,860 8$219,341,176 0.544 $344,770,226 $187,532,159 9$208,251,122 0.508 $350,252,072 $178,050,393 10$197,721,789 0.475 $355,821,080 $169,048,032 11$187,724,828 0.444 $361,478,635 $160,500,837 12$178,233,320 0.415 $367,226,146 $152,385,795 13$169,221,710 0.388 $373,065,042 $144,681,055 14$160,665,734 0.362 $378,996,776 $137,365,873 15$152,542,354 0.339 $385,022,824 $130,420,552 16$144,829,699 0.317 $391,144,687 $123,826,391 17$137,507,001 0.296 $397,363,888 $117,565,636 18$130,554,544 0.277 $403,681,974 $111,621,430 19$123,953,609 0.258 $410,100,517 $105,977,767 20


$3,910,246,930 PV/Net/Cash/Flows/1L20$3,627,193,132

Avg./Net/Disc/$/1L20 $175,956,846

Avg./Net/UnDisc./$/1L20$357,150,744

StartLUp





Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansBAC$Reduction$(from$.08%$to$.05%)AALowpoint


Cost$Description






Notes:



Total/$

Net/Present/Value/$



$152,385,795$144,681,055

$137,365,873$130,420,552

$123,826,391$117,565,636

$111,621,430$105,977,767

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

A$16,841,402

$50,269,858

$47,728,176

A$30,000,000

A$20,000,000

A$10,000,000

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

1 2


$Cost$$ PV$$$$$$$$$$Cost$$ *Benefit$$ PV$$$$$$

Benefit$$$16,841,402 $16,841,402 L$/////////////////// $0

$17,109,180 $15,739,628 $70,630,150 $66,009,486

$17,381,216 $14,943,821 $71,753,169 $62,671,997

$17,657,578 $14,188,250 $72,894,045 $59,503,254

$17,938,333 $13,470,882 $74,053,060 $56,494,725

$18,223,553 $12,789,784 $75,230,504 $53,638,309

$18,513,307 $12,143,123 $76,426,669 $50,926,316

$18,807,669 $11,529,157 $77,641,853 $48,351,444

$19,106,711 $10,946,235 $78,876,358 $45,906,759

$19,410,507 $10,392,785 $80,130,492 $43,585,679

$19,719,135 $9,867,318 $81,404,567 $41,381,954

$20,032,669 $9,368,419 $82,698,900 $39,289,652

$20,351,188 $8,894,745 $84,013,812 $37,303,137

$20,674,772 $8,445,020 $85,349,632 $35,417,063

$21,003,501 $8,018,033 $86,706,691 $33,626,350

$21,337,457 $7,612,635 $88,085,327 $31,926,176

$21,676,722 $7,227,735 $89,485,884 $30,311,965

$22,021,382 $6,862,295 $90,908,710 $28,779,369

$22,371,522 $6,515,332 $92,354,158 $27,324,263

$22,727,229 $6,185,912 $93,822,589 $25,942,728

$0 $0 $95,314,368 $24,631,044

$392,905,034 $211,982,509 $1,647,780,940 $843,021,670

$631,039,161

40.79

293.43%

0.51

0.25

StartLUp


Name$of$Analyst:/Preston/EvansBAC$Reduction$(from$.08%$to$.05%)AALowpoint (2)$Real$Discount$Rate$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Date:/April/22,/2016Constant'Dollars'Year'2015







Net/Present/Value/$



$50,269,858

$47,728,176

$45,315,004

$43,023,843

$40,848,526$38,783,194

$36,822,286$34,960,524

$33,192,894$31,514,636

$29,921,233$28,408,393

$26,972,043$25,608,317

$24,313,541

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


BAC&DecreaseLowpoint))NPV&TImeline

7.00%

Discount$Rate


Net$Disc.$$$Flows$$

1.000 L$16,841,402 L$16,841,402

0.935 $53,788,748 $50,269,858

0.873 $54,643,989 $47,728,176

0.816 $55,512,828 $45,315,004

0.763 $56,395,482 $43,023,843

0.713 $57,292,170 $40,848,526

0.666 $58,203,116 $38,783,194

0.623 $59,128,546 $36,822,286

0.582 $60,068,689 $34,960,524

0.544 $61,023,782 $33,192,894

0.508 $61,994,060 $31,514,636

0.475 $62,979,765 $29,921,233

0.444 $63,981,144 $28,408,393

0.415 $64,998,444 $26,972,043

0.388 $66,031,919 $25,608,317

0.362 $67,081,826 $24,313,541

0.339 $68,148,427 $23,084,230

0.317 $69,231,987 $21,917,074

0.296 $70,332,776 $20,808,931

0.277 $71,451,067 $19,756,815

0.258 $72,587,139 $18,757,896



Avg./Net/Disc/$/1L20 $31,144,082

Avg./Net/UnDisc./$/1L20$63,215,114





$24,313,541$23,084,230

$21,917,074$20,808,931

$19,756,815$18,757,896

16 17 18 19 20 21

CalculationsFatality&Rates&per&100,000Colorado's*population 5,456,574Average*fatalities 150Status*quo*fatality*rate 2.74898EA05 Per&DUISQ*fatality*rate*/100000 2.748977655 LEAF&moneyLEAF*fatalites 131LEAF*fatality*rate*/100000 2.400773819 LEAF&to&checkpointsBAC*fatalities 117.5BAC*fatality*rate 2.15336583

60%*of*LEAF*goes*to*Checkpoints

CO&Alcohol&Tax&Revenue $38,817,000Expected&decrease&(%) 4.50%

Now Policy&change Expected&decrease&($) A$1,746,76590$************************************** 180$*********************

2,340,000$*************************** 4,680,000$*********

1,404,000$*************************** 2,808,000$*********

LEAF&Funding&for&BAC&option

60%*of*LEAF*goes*to*Checkpoints

Year Total Fatalities

Alcohol-involved (=>.01%

BAC) Fatalities Percentage

1982 43,945 26,173 59.6%

1983 42,589 24,635 57.8%

1984 44,257 24,762 56.0%

1985 43,825 23,167 52.9%

1986 46,087 25,017 54.3%

1987 46,390 24,094 51.9%

1988 47,087 23,833 50.6%

1989 45,582 22,424 49.2%

1990 44,599 22,587 50.6%

1991 41,508 20,159 48.6%

1992 39,250 18,290 46.6%

1993 40,150 17,908 44.6%

1994 40,716 17,308 42.5%

1995 41,817 17,732 42.4%

1996 42,065 17,749 42.2%

1997 42,013 16,711 39.8%

1998 41,501 16,284 39.2%

1999 41,717 16,192 38.8%

2000 41,821 16,792 40.2%

policy memorandum: policy methods to reduce alcohol ... · legal landscape and enforcement...

Documents