HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
State of Hawaii · Bishop Square, 1001 Bishop Street, ASB Tower 970 · Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
50th ANNIVERSARY 1968-2018

Resolution of Charge
2018-04
(COMPL-C-17-00001-02)
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean
Recreation - Kauai, District Manager’s Alleged Violations of Gifts Law, Gifts
Reporting Law, and Fair Treatment Law
December 14, 2018

The Hawaii State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) has resolved a Charge
against Joseph V. Borden, District Manager, Department of Land and Natural
Resources (“DLNR), Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation – Kauai (“DOBORKauai”), for alleged violations of the State Ethics Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes
(“HRS”) chapter 84.
I.

Facts
Respondent Borden admitted that the following facts are true and correct:
a) Respondent Borden, at all times relevant herein, was employed by the
Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”), Division of Boating
and Ocean Recreation (“DOBOR”), a state agency, as the District
Manager of the Kauai DOBOR office. Respondent Borden has worked for
DOBOR-Kauai since 2004; he became District Manager in 2012.
b) As District Manager of DOBOR-Kauai, Respondent Borden supervised
nine employees. He was responsible for issuing a variety of permits and
for procuring goods and services for the Kauai District of DOBOR.

Falsification of government documents in jobs awarded to private contractor
c) Respondent Borden does not dispute the following:
i. Between 2013 and 2017, Respondent Borden authorized nearly
$1 million in state funds to be paid to a private contractor, Aaron
Hoff, doing business as South Shore Lawn Services and Hoff
Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Hoff was paid for approximately 107 jobs,
Telephone: (808) 587-0460 Email: ethics@hawaiiethics.org

Website: http://ethics.hawaii.gov/

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 2
the majority (more than 70) of which were under $5,000 and
were not required to be awarded via the HIePRO procurement
system.
ii. For more than 50 of these jobs, there is no evidence in the
procurement files that he sought any other bids for the work.
iii. For forty-two of the jobs awarded to Mr. Hoff, Respondent
Borden submitted a procurement form – Form SPO-10 – with
his requests to his supervisors for approval of the expenditure to
Mr. Hoff; for jobs under $15,000, this form asks the state official
seeking to procure goods or services to list each of the bids
received for a job. Thus, each of these forty-two SPO-10 forms
generally listed one or more other vendors – along with a
company name, a contact name, a phone number, and a bid for
the job – aside from Mr. Hoff.
iv. Every one of those forty-two SPO-10 forms contains false
information regarding the existence of other potential bidders
and the amount of the bids.
v. Each of the aforementioned forty-two jobs contains “filler” bids:
information suggesting that there had been another bidder
competing with Mr. Hoff, when in fact no such bid ever existed.
vi. For example, on or about May 11, 2017, Respondent Borden
sought to award a job to Hoff for $11,979.00 to remove a large
tree and a submerged aluminum mast at the Niumalu River
mouth. Respondent Borden indicated that two other companies
provided higher bids. Because the job was over $5,000 (but
under $15,000), Respondent Borden submitted form SPO-10A –
another procurement form to be signed by a bidder on a state
job – purportedly signed by representatives of the two other
companies. Commission staff received written statements from
representatives of those companies indicating that they did not
submit these bids. On September 28, 2018, when questioned –
under oath – about these SPO-10A forms by Commission staff,
Respondent Borden stated that he had personally obtained the
signatures of the companies’ representatives on these SPO-10A
forms and that these were legitimate bids.
vii. As another example, on or about January 7, 2013, Respondent
Borden authorized the payment of $36,458.45 to Mr. Hoff’s
company to remove a sunken vessel. Respondent Borden
indicated that he had received two higher bids (for $42,000 and

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 3
$55,000). Commission staff contacted each of these
“unsuccessful” bidders; both indicated they did not submit bids
for this job.
viii. Upon being contacted by Commission staff, several of these
“unsuccessful” bidders expressed anger and frustration that
their companies’ names were being used by Respondent
Borden in this way. One company was listed as an
“unsuccessful” bidder on roughly two dozen occasions, even
though it had never submitted any of these bids.
ix. Commission staff was unable to verify that work was performed
on each of the above-referenced 107 jobs, but the procurement
documents raise questions as to whether work was actually
performed on every job.
x. For example, on or about June 2, 2016, Respondent Borden
authorized the payment of $2,958.34 to Mr. Hoff’s company to
dispose of a Fish Aggregating Device (“FAD”) buoy that had
purportedly washed towards shore and posed a hazard; the
procurement documents included a photo of a FAD buoy
(Exhibit A). Then, on or about February 23, 2017,, Respondent
Borden authorized the payment of $2,145.84 to Mr. Hoff’s
company to dispose of a FAD buoy, and the procurement
documents contained a copy of the same photo (Exhibit B). The
photo did not originate in 2016, however – it came from a 2010
newspaper article from The Garden Island, a Kauai newspaper
(Exhibit C).
xi. Even if work had been performed on each of these jobs, there is
evidence that the amounts paid to Mr. Hoff were inflated over
market rates for the same goods and services. For example:
1. Respondent Borden authorized the purchase of gravel
from Mr. Hoff – including delivery – on multiple occasions
for roughly $400 a ton (e.g., $1,609.38 for four tons on
December 14, 2015). Another vendor on Kauai provided
Commission staff with a quote of $18-$35 a ton for
gravel, not including delivery. Even factoring in rough
cost of delivery, the total cost for four tons of gravel
should have been well under $500.
2. Respondent Borden issued a Request for Quotes
through HIePRO on January 3, 2017, for two portable
toilets (one ADA accessible) at the Waiakea small boat

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 4
launch in Kapaa, Kauai, for a twelve-month period with
cleaning three times a week. Mr. Hoff was awarded the
contract for $46,500 – up from the $36,650 he had been
paid for this service for the prior year. Commission staff
contacted DLNR in 2017 and advised that the agency
implement stronger review procedures for procurement
activities. In December 2017, Respondent Borden
issued another Request for Quotes for the same service;
a different vendor bid on – and was awarded – the oneyear contract for $14,940, or less than one-third of the
amount paid to Mr. Hoff’s company.
xii. Respondent Borden authorized an additional 3% “credit card
fee” be paid to Mr. Hoff for many of the jobs – that is, an
additional 3% fee on top of the original amount quoted for the
job.
d) Respondent Borden testified, under oath, that Mr. Hoff was his friend and
– as explained more fully below – that Mr. Hoff provided Respondent
Borden with free personal use of Mr. Hoff’s riding lawnmower. Mr. Hoff
also provided Respondent Borden with free personal use of an excavator
and free CrossFit classes for Respondent Borden’s adult son.
e) Respondent Borden contends that although he was required to obtain
multiple bids to comply with state procurement rules, he inserted “filler”
bids because he was under pressure to have jobs completed quickly and
he believed Mr. Hoff would get the work done expeditiously.
Falsification of equipment disposal records
f) On at least four occasions, Respondent Borden instructed a subordinate
employee to certify – falsely – that she (the subordinate) witnessed or
participated in the disposal of state equipment although the subordinate
had not done so (and Respondent Borden knew that the subordinate had
not done so). Specifically, Respondent Borden directed the subordinate to
falsely certify on equipment disposal records that, between 2012 and
2014, she disposed of a Bobcat Skid-Steer, a Honda generator, two riding
lawnmowers, and a chainsaw.
g) On another occasion, Respondent Borden instructed another subordinate
employee to certify – again, falsely – that he (the subordinate) witnessed
or participated in the disposal of a Scag Tiger Cat riding lawnmower, and
a large (20 or 25 gallon) tank for spraying pesticides or other liquids,
without having done so (and Respondent Borden knew that the
subordinate had not done so).

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 5

h) Respondent Borden does not dispute that Commission staff received
evidence that one or more of these pieces of supposedly discarded
equipment were instead retained by a DOBOR-Kauai employee, or a
family member of a DOBOR-Kauai employee. Respondent Borden
maintains that he did not authorize anyone to keep any of these pieces of
equipment.
Improper acceptance of gifts from contractor and permittees
-

Free use of riding lawnmower and other gifts from Aaron Hoff
i) From January 2017 to August 2017, Respondent Borden accepted gifts
from Aaron Hoff, the DOBOR-Kauai contractor discussed above.
Specifically, Respondent Borden was provided with free personal use of
Mr. Hoff’s riding lawnmower roughly twice a month from January through
May 2017, and roughly once a month since that time. Respondent Borden
typically borrowed the lawnmower for a weekend, but at times kept the
lawnmower for a week or more.
j) Renting a similar riding lawnmower from a private vendor would cost
approximately $150 a day or $600 a week.
k) Respondent Borden did not report the gifts he accepted – the free use of
the riding lawnmower – by filing a Gifts Disclosure Statement with the
Commission by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2017 (to cover the
reporting period of June 1, 2016 to June 1, 2017).
l) The lawnmower was at Respondent Borden’s personal residence on May
23, 2017, August 4, 2017, and August 13, 2017. This lawnmower appears
to be identical to the riding lawnmower purportedly disposed of by the
Respondent in May 2017; the Respondent maintains that they are
different lawnmowers and that he did not appropriate the DOBOR-Kauai
lawnmower for his personal use, and the Commission makes no findings
on this matter.
m) Respondent also accepted the free personal use of an excavator from Mr.
Hoff. Mr. Hoff also provided Respondent Borden’s adult son with free
training at Mr. Hoff’s CrossFit gym.

-

Free use of large sprayer from another DOBOR-Kauai contractor
n) Respondent Borden leases pasture land in Anahola from the Department
of Hawaiian Homelands (“DHHL”). The pasture land adjacent to
Respondent Borden’s pasture is leased by Clay Kelekoma or Patrick

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 6
Kelekoma, the father and brother, respectively, of Respondent Borden’s
subordinate employee. DOBOR-Kauai has contracted with Patrick
Kelekoma to perform work for the State in the recent past.
o) Respondent Borden accepted a gift from Patrick Kelekoma, a DOBORKauai contractor, by borrowing Mr. Kelekoma’s large (20 or 25 gallon)
sprayer without charge for Respondent Borden’s own personal use on or
around May 23, 2017, August 4, 2017, and August 13, 2017.
p) The sprayer was at Respondent Borden’s personal residence on May 23,
2017, August 4, 2017, and August 13, 2017. This sprayer appears to be
identical to the sprayer purportedly disposed of by Respondent Borden in
May 2017; the Respondent maintains that they are different sprayers and
that he did not appropriate the DOBOR-Kauai sprayer for his personal
use, and the Commission makes no findings on this matter.
-

Gifts of wine, food, and movie tickets from permittees
q) On multiple occasions – and even after attending an Ethics Commission
training in 2016 – Respondent Borden accepted bottles of wine and
champagne, pies, cookies, and other food from permittees subject to his
regulatory control.
r) The Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau (“HVCB”), a private non-profit
organization, has applied for, and/or has assisted others in applying for,
permits that require official action from Respondent Borden. For example,
in 2014, HVCB requested a permit for a reality television show. On
October 1, 2014, HVCB representative Sue Kanoho e-mailed Respondent
Borden regarding the permit request, and Respondent Borden responded
via e-mail the next day to say that he had approved the permit request.
Respondent Borden also took official action on permits for the filming of
the movie, “Jurassic World.”
s) On or about June 1, 2015, HVCB representative Kanoho offered
Respondent Borden and Respondent Borden’s wife two movie tickets to
the premier showing of “Jurassic World” in 3D, along with admission to a
pre-screening reception. Respondent Borden accepted the gift of two
movie tickets and attended the movie with his wife.

First-class air travel and other flight upgrades
t) It is the State’s policy that employees travel by coach class when traveling
on state business. The State’s travel rules provide that “[t]ravel route(s)
shall be the most economical and direct route(s) available to the point(s)
of business destination.” Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) § 3-10-6.

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 7
See also HAR § 3-10-8(b) (“Unless otherwise justified and approved by
the governor, travel shall be by the most economical means consistent
with time available and urgency of the trip.”).
u) In Advisory Opinion No. 95-1, the Commission determined that travel
upgrades for state officials traveling on state business are a personal
benefit rather than a benefit to the State and that HRS §§ 84-11 and 84-13
prohibited the solicitation and acceptance of travel upgrades by state
officials.
v) Notwithstanding these clear policies, Respondent Borden used state funds
to purchase first-class, round-trip travel for himself for state travel on
August 25, 2015, January 12, 2016, and February 12, 2016.
w) Respondent Borden also purchased flight upgrades for himself using state
funds. He first purchased economy class tickets, then – despite being a
paid, ticketed passenger – purchased upgrades to higher classes of travel
using state funds, claiming that no seats were available in economy class
when he tried to check in. This occurred on May 6, 2014, July 23, 2015,
and September 2, 2016.
x) Respondent Borden also attempted to purchase first-class tickets for
himself for an August 16, 2016 meeting in Honolulu. He reserved the
tickets and submitted a request to his supervisors for approval in
Honolulu; the request to purchase the first-class tickets was approved, but
after the first-class reservation had expired. The day before the meeting,
Respondent Borden re-booked tickets in Economy Class.

Use of state equipment for personal purposes; authorizing DOBOR-Kauai employees to
use state tools and equipment for personal use
y) Respondent Borden used state equipment and premises for personal
projects, including grinding parts for his personal vehicle at the DOBORKauai maintenance shed.
z) Respondent Borden also authorized the personal use of state tools and
equipment by his subordinate employees, and further authorized
subordinates to take state tools and equipment home for their personal
use. Among other items, Respondent Borden allowed subordinates to use
a DOBOR-Kauai welder, string trimmer, chainsaw, and vacuum cleaner
for their personal use.
aa) Respondent Borden was aware that personal use of state equipment was
prohibited. In March 2017, he investigated the personal use of tools and

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 8
equipment by another DLNR office. On or around March 16, 2017, he
drafted a memorandum to DOBOR Administrator Ed Underwood, stating
that “common sense should have come into play” and that “personal use
of state owned property is prohibited.” However, Respondent Borden
continued to allow his subordinate employees to use state equipment for
personal use until at least July of 2017, when another DOBOR-Kauai
employee filed a grievance through the employee’s union representative.
bb) Respondent Borden acknowledges that the Commission staff also
received evidence that Respondent Borden authorized subordinate
employees to take and keep DOBOR-Kauai property for their personal
use. Specifically, Commission staff received evidence that, on multiple
occasions, Respondent Borden authorized the purchase of brand-new
tires for State vehicles and trailers, after which Respondent Borden would
allow subordinate employees to take and keep the old (but still usable)
tires for their personal use. Respondent Borden denies these allegations.
Use of state resources for private business purposes and to secure personal benefits
cc) In 2013 and 2014, Respondent Borden served as president of the Anahola
Farmers and Ranchers Association (“AFARA”), a private non-profit
organization.
dd) From 2013-2015, Respondent Borden used his state e-mail address and
state time to conduct business on behalf of AFARA. He sent or received
more than 500 e-mail messages, intentionally and knowingly providing his
state e-mail address to others so that they could contact him for AFARA
business.
ee) Respondent Borden used his state e-mail address – and his standard
signature block at the end of his e-mail, listing his state title and work
mailing address and phone number – to send dozens of e-mails on behalf
of AFARA. Many, if not all, of these e-mails were sent on state time from
Respondent Borden’s state computer in his state office. He sent e-mails
to other state officials, including to the Chair and the Deputy to the Chair
of DHHL and to the Office of the Governor. On behalf of AFARA, he used
his state e-mail to recommend another AFARA member for a position as
the Kauai Hawaiian Homes Commissioner. And on multiple occasions, he
used his state e-mail to request donations for AFARA fundraising events.
ff) At one point, Respondent Borden wrote in an e-mail that he was getting
some “flack” for using his government e-mail address to conduct business
on behalf of AFARA, yet he continued to do so for many months
thereafter.

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 9
gg) On two additional occasions, Respondent Borden used his state e-mail to
contact another state official to try to acquire permission to use additional
ranch land for himself.
Substantial Financial Transactions with, and Receipt of Personal Services from,
Subordinate Employee
hh) Around May of 2017, Respondent Borden instructed his subordinate,
(hereinafter referred to as “DOBOR-Kauai Employee #1”), to repair the
carburetor in Respondent Borden’s personal string trimmer. DOBORKauai Employee #1 performed this work on state time, using state
equipment.
ii) Respondent Borden hired his subordinate, DOBOR-Kauai Employee #1,
for personal auto repair and other work on more than five occasions.
Respondent Borden compensated DOBOR-Kauai Employee #1 by
purchasing auto parts for that employee, including purchasing a set of Pro
Comp tires valued at approximately $1,000.
II.

The State Ethics Code, HRS Chapter 84
A.

Constitutional Mandate and Statutory Purpose

The State Ethics Code arises from the declaration contained in the State
Constitution that “[t]he people of Hawaii believe that public officers and employees must
exhibit the highest standards of ethical conduct and that these standards come from the
personal integrity of each individual in government.”1 To this end, the Hawaii
Constitution further directs that the legislature enact a code of ethics that applies to all
appointed and elected state officers and employees.
In accordance with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature enacted the State
Ethics Code and charged the Commission with administering and enforcing the law “so
that public confidence in public servants will be preserved.”2 Additionally, the legislature
explicitly directed that the State Ethics Code be liberally construed to promote high
standards of ethical conduct in state government. HRS § 84-1. It is in this context that
the Commission examines every employee’s actions.

1

Hawaii State Constitution, Art. XIV.

2

HRS Chapter 84, Preamble.

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 10
B.

Applicable Sections of the State Ethics Code
1. The Gifts Law, HRS § 84-11

The Gifts law, HRS § 84-11, prohibits state employee from accepting certain
kinds of gifts:
No . . . employee shall solicit, accept, or receive, directly or
indirectly, any gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan,
travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing, or promise, or in any other
form, under circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred
that the gift is intended to influence the . . . employee in the
performance of the legislator's or employee’s official duties or is
intended as a reward for any official action on the . . . employee’s
part.
2. The Gifts Reporting Law, HRS § 84-11.5
The Gifts Reporting law, HRS § 84-11.5, requires a state employee to file a gifts
disclosure statement with the Commission on June 30 of each year if all the following
conditions are met:
(1)

(2)

(3)

The . . . employee, or spouse or dependent child of the . . .
employee, received directly or indirectly from one source any
gift or gifts valued singly or in the aggregate in excess of
$200, whether the gift is in the form of money, service,
goods, or in any other form;
The source of the gift or gifts have interests that may be
affected by official action or lack of action by the . . .
employee; and
The gift is not exempted . . . from reporting requirements[.]

HRS § 84-11.5(a).
The gifts disclosure statement covers the period from June 1 of the preceding
calendar year through June 1 of the year of the report. HRS § 84-11.5(b). The gifts
disclosure statement must contain the following information:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

A description of the gift;
A good faith estimate of the value of the gift;
The date the gift was received; and
The name of the person, business entity, or organization
from whom, or on behalf of whom, the gift was received.

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 11
HRS § 84-11.5(c). The failure of an employee to file a gifts disclosure statement as
required by the Gifts Reporting Law is a violation of the State Ethics Code.
HRS § 84-11.5(e).
3. The Fair Treatment Law, HRS § 84-13
The State Ethics Code prohibits an employee from misusing his official position.
Specifically, the “fair treatment” law, HRS § 84-13, states in relevant part:
No . . . employee shall use or attempt to use the . . .
employee’s official position to secure or grant unwarranted
privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or treatment, for
oneself or others; including but not limited to the following:
(1) Seeking other employment or contract for services for
oneself by the use or attempted use of the . . .
employee’s office or position.
(2) Accepting, receiving, or soliciting compensation or other
consideration for the performance of the . . . employee’s
official duties or responsibilities except as provided by
law.
(3) Using state time, equipment or other facilities for private
business purposes.
(4) Soliciting, selling, or otherwise engaging in a substantial
financial transaction with a subordinate or a person or
business whom the . . . employee inspects or supervises
in the . . . employee's official capacity.
C.

Application of the State Ethics Code to Respondent Borden

As District Manager of DOBOR-Kauai, Respondent Borden is a state employee
for purposes of the State Ethics Code.3 As a state employee, Respondent Borden is
required to comply with the State Ethics Code.

3

HRS § 84-3.

 Resolution of Charge 2018-04
Page 12
III.

Resolution of Charge

The Commission believes that, based on undisputed and admitted facts listed
above,4 Respondent Borden likely violated the Gifts Law (HRS § 84-11), the Gifts
Reporting Law (HRS § 84-11.5), and the Fair Treatment Law (HRS § 84-13).
Given the numerous likely violations of the State Ethics Code, the Commission
believes it is reasonable, fair, and in the public interest to resolve these matters by
(1) issuing this Resolution of Charge; (2) requiring Respondent Borden to resign from
his position with DOBOR-Kauai, effective no later than December 15, 2018; and
(3) requiring Respondent Borden to pay an administrative penalty of $15,000 to the
State of Hawaii.
The Commission is troubled that internal control mechanisms did not uncover
any potential problems regarding the purchase of nearly $1,000,000 in goods and
services – on more than 100 separate occasions – from a private contractor.
Respondent Borden’s immediate superiors within DLNR should have reviewed these
expenditures with greater care and should have required additional verification as to the
need for (and prices of) these services. As such, the Commission respectfully refers
this matter to DLNR and to the State Procurement Office for review and action as
appropriate.
The Commission is likewise troubled that other State employees agreed to
Respondent Borden’s request to falsify government records by certifying that they
participated in the disposal of equipment when they had not done so. Each State
employee has an independent obligation to act with integrity and to refuse to engage in
behavior that violates the Ethics Code or another source of law. State employees can
contact a higher-level supervisor, the Ethics Commission, and/or their union
representatives if a supervisor or colleague asks them to engage in such conduct.
If this matter were to proceed to a contested case hearing, Respondent would
likely face more than 165 counts of violating the Ethics Code, each of which could be
punishable by an administrative fine of $1,000 (or $500 for violations that occurred prior
to June 22, 2017). The fine agreed to by the Respondent and the Commission in this
case reflects the Respondent’s agreement to resign as a condition of settlement; the
fine also reflects Respondent’s assertions regarding his limited personal finances
(particularly considering that he must resign as a condition of settlement).
As previously stated, the Commission believes it is fair, reasonable, and in the
public interest to settle the Charge pursuant to the terms set forth herein, without further
administrative action.

4

This Resolution of Charge does not make formal findings but relies on the facts
admitted by, and/or not disputed by, Respondent Borden.

  

From: Borden, Joseph 

Sent: Wednesday; February 22, 201? 4:46 PM
To: Yim, Kevin 

Subject: Re: FAD

Attachments: FAD at Anini.pdf

forgot to attach the photo

Joseph ?Joe Borden
Kauai District Manager
2494 Niumaiu Road
Lihue, Hi. 96766

Ph. (803) 241-3113

Fx. {808) 241?3117

 

From: Borden, Joseph 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 4:25:02 PM

To: Yim, Kevin 
Subject: FAD

Kevin,

I got a FAD buoy roliing on the reef at Anini. Can I hire someone to go get it? It? cost roughly $2,200.00

 

Joseph ?Joe? Borden
Kauai District Manager
2494 Niumaiu Road
Lihue, Hi. 96?66

Ph. (808) 241-3113

Fx. {808) 2413117

1

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE OF HAWAII Card ID - Log Include this
number on
POARO AUTHORIZATION FORM 1 18 043 vanord InvoIce
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Issue Date: 22-Feb-1?
Boating 8; Ocean Recreation DBDR-K Deliver Before:
ORGANIZATION FUNCTION ANO 
DELIVERY ADDRESS:
DLNR. 
Hoff LLC. KAUAI DISTRICT
2404 NIUMALU ROAO
P.O. Box 701 LIHIJE, HI 00700
.
0 LawaI, HI. ESTES BILLING ADDRESS:
DLNR. BUR-K
552-5330 KAUAI DISTRICT
2494 NIUMALU ROAD
LIHUE, HI 
OUAN UNIT DESCRIPTION PLATES AMOUNT
1 job remove and dispose of FAD buoy rolling on 2.00000 2,000.00
1 ea 3% credit card charge 00.00 60.00
?end? If. ?Mo 
Comments I Notes Subtotal 2,060.00
Need to remove it imrnedlatelg.r remove it to pwent any ?uRher damage to the reef. 
Got verbal apprIUaI from Ed at 2:22.07
35.04 Taxes 85.84
TOTAL 24145.34

01.1.1.4?;

 

TELEPHONE
EPAR



OBJECT co
7100 0801

YR APP 

1? 081 [3 000000 00 

UAG TOTALS 
15! Copy? Piece! 1" 2nd Copy -

   

Original - Vendor 

PROJ N0. PH ACT ESTIMATED COST

 

 

 

 

APPROVING AUTHORITY

2 145.84

    

OPTIONAL DATA

   

pcard Form {Mama}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20052111:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE OF HAWAII Card ID - Log II lmiud? "?13
number on
PCAFID AUTHORIZATION FDFIM 019 044 a Invoice
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Issue Date: 31-May-15
Boating Ocean Henreation DEOFI-K Deliver Before:
ORGANIZATION FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY
DELIVERY ADDRESS:
DLNFI, BOFI-K
South Shore Services KAUAI DISTRICT
2494 NIUMALU FIDAD
PD. Box 761 HI Bares
Lawai, HI. 96765 BILLING ADDRESS:
DLNFI. BDFI-K
652-5330 KAUAI DISTRICT
2494 NIUMALU FIOAD
LIHUE, HI 961436
OUAN UNIT DESCRIPTION i JUSTIFICATION Paw; AMOUNT
1 lot Remove and dispose of FAD buoy 2.840.00 2,840.00
Comments Notes Subtotal 2,840.00
FADS buoy washed ashore south of Anahola Bay. The location oi the buoy is thretening the 31 .
satety helath and welfare of the public.
118.34 Taxes 118.34
TOTAL 2,958.34

5'
Ali" -
ose?gh V.Borden 241 -31 11

 

 

 

 

 

TELEPHONE

IFYR
S16

APP 
359 

OBJECT CC
FIBU 

FFICIJ NO. 
006000 

MT
A41

UAC TOTALS 

Driginei - Vendor Iet Copy - Fiscai 3? 2nd Copy - Diwson

ESTIMATED GUST

APPROVING AUTHORITY

958.34

OPTIONAL DATA

 

p?erd Form [Mer??t

 

EXHIBIT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE PROCUREMENT OFFICE

 

RECORD OF PROCUREMENT
1. Agency: DLNR a POIpCard. No. 044
a. Date: 5 1/20 16 4. ProjchRequisitionMork Order No.

 

 

s. This form is for: Small Purchase procurements pursuant to HRS $5,000 to less than [5,000
Small Purchase procurements pursuant to HRS less than $25,000

*Sole Source Procurements pursuant to HRS less than $50,000

*Emergency Procurements pursuant to HRS ?l03D-307, less than $50.00

*Awards shall be posted in accordance with Procurement Circular or as amended.

 

0. PART A. Description of goodlservicet'construction:

Remove and dispose of FAD buoy located south of Anahola Bay.

 

 

PART B. QUOTATIONS SOLICITED:

 

a. Vendor Name 9. Representative to. Phone No ?$622113;

1:221:12:er Law? 652-5330 05/31/2010 2000.00
[120 a 13 Equipment 335?6422 05/31/2010 0.00
DELPatrick Kelekoma Jr. 652-554? 05/31/2015 4000.00
[14.naluahine Trucking 24sasses 05/31/2015 0.00
Clankamai Towing 639?8699 05/31/2010 0.00

 

 

10. PART C. Justi?cation for inabilityI to obtain minimum three quotations, if applicable:
Called each Vendor. Requirement is to remove the buoy today 5/31/2016.
Vendors

Vendor 1 is the only that's HCE compliant and accepts credit cards.

2~5 are not HCE compliant and do not accept credit cards.

 

 

 

14. PART D. Justi?cation for award made to other than lowest responsive. responsible vendor:

 

5/31/2010

Signature date l6. Signature
Employee soliciting quotations

Procurement Ot'licer approval

date

FILE A COPY AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THE PROCUREMENT FILE.

5 PO- IO (Rev. 03! I 4/2008}

 

 

Fishing Lu?oys washing ashore - Thegardenisland.com: News 

.
"5
6 1Kutnl?l'1- mow-ell ll?u? [wt
THE GARDEN ISLAND
?All? 840 Few Pnnun Ilsa

News Sports Opinion Life Entertainment Classi?eds Real Estate [obs Visitors E-Edltion Search

 

Home News

Fishing buoys washing ashore

Story image 

Previous Next

 

 

Mobile e~Edilion SubscriberServices Advertise with Us Contact Us Welcome! Subscribe
I

Custom Sears]

Season THIS one I

 

Contributed photo

 

FAD at Larsens.jpg

1119 large yettow buoys that often wash ashore on Kaua'i are the state?s Fish Aggregating Devices. which
help concentrate pelagic ?sh. making it easier for ?shermen. The buoy seen here washed over the reef at
Lepe'uli Beach, eomrnontyil known as Larson's Beach. Residents say they are concerned about the damage
to the reef.

?if?av'.

 

 

EXHIBIT 

lof4

 .
Fishing buoys washing ashore - Thegardenisland.com: News

20f4

Rules of Conduct

Be Nlce.

No racism. sexism or any sort
of -isn?I that is degrading to
another person.

Keep It Clean.

PIEBSE vulgar. 4
IEWU, racist SBXLIEFIV-

oriented language.

Don't Threaten or Abuse. Be Proactive.
2 Threats of harming another 5 Use the 'Report' tint: on each
person will not be tolerated. comment to let us know of
AND PLEASE TURN OFF abusive posts.
CAPS LOCK.
Share with Us.
Be Truthful. 3 We'd love to hear eyewitness
3 Don't knowingly lie about accounts, the history behind
anyone or anything. an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

Log in

Register

Current users sign in here.

8 comments:

Westiteuai posted at 10:16 am on Fri, Dec 10, 2010.

This is news?? The FAD buoys have been in use for over twenty years, and yes they
occasionally break loose. They are generally redeployed when funds and conditions
permit. as they are a boon especially to the recreational ?shermen. Slnoe they are "Fish
Aggregating Devices"1 they help reduce the time, distance. and fuel spent trolling.

Posts: 32o

Log In to reportl Link

putehu posted at 9:33 am on Fri, Dec 10. 2EI1 D.

Hoy. my understanding is that the buoy was placed in the ocean by a known group, tor
a purpose. news reporter also said the group is aware 2 of the buoys are MIA.
they tor someone else to locate and return or what?I Everyone's
pointing the ?nger to someone else [n ow days style yeah) where's the 
especially it it's causing problems of sorts? Son of a gun. I no understand
the sins. malarna pone.

Posts; 366

Log In to report! 

Kirby posted at 2:1? pm on Thu, Dec 9, 2010.

If some ?shermen that use the buoy would STOP tying up to it to break It free. we
wouldn?t have to deal with hazards to navigation at sea and buoys washing up on the
shore.

Post's: 9

Log In to report Link

funataxf posted 3112:30 pm on Thu, Dec 9. 2010.

Thanks obsolete your I stopped reading halfway since i've been ?shing the

de-OBtE-a? 

 

 

Online Poll

Should this country have stricter gun laws?

Yes. Too many shootings are happenings.
No. People have a ?ght to own Iirearms.

Maybe. Something needs to change to prevent more

mass killings.

Most Popular

Mole: Most Conn-Intent Slacks

Whales beach at Kalapaki

Lehua update: No ram, plenty chicks
United effort saves some whales
?They are our aumakua?

Queen Emma?s journey reenacted at

Kokee

Follow Us On Facebook

 

I .
Fishing buoys washing ashore - Thegardenistandcom: News

3of4

posts; 949 houys for many years and didn?t need the 'Tad" part explained to me. Perhaps if the
story was titled better or the caption under the photo was more precise my comment
would have been different. Let?s see? "Fad Ie? chained to a tree on beach". Maybe
someone should put It back where it belongs- In the ocean.

Log In to report. Lint:

posted at 3:50 am on Thu. Dec B. 2010.

Yes they are useful and yes they should be redeployed, however the fishermen should
got tog ether and do It themselves. If the government does it. It will probably cost a
million dollars and require expensive studies and focus groups, his, his, his.

Log In to report] Link

Obsolete posted at 3:47 am on Thu, Dec 9, 2010.

lunatalri.

?79 "The buoy that recently washed up at Lepe'ult Beach to no longer rolling on the reef.

Heacoctr. with the help of another man. rolled the endpoundar up the beach and
chained It to a tree."

It helps to read the whole article.

Log In to reperti Link

tunataxr' posted at 3:32 am on Thu, Dec 9, 2010.

Now that it has made the front page of the newspaper perhaps DLNR or some other
PMS: 9?9 state agency will respond and remove it from the reef.

Log In to reportl LinI-t

mutantme posted at 3:31 am on Thu, Dec 9, 2010.

Seems to me that whether these buoys are proving to be useful enough Is besides the

Posts: 32 point. Whether they are or not. the groups (university?) responsible for "planting" them
In the ocean should have to recover them If they are teaching on shore. It's no different
than litter or waste in my book.

Log In to report. Lint:

Print comments

Services

Advertise with Us contact Us About Us Subscriber Services

 



 

 

HAWAIIAN

AIRLINES.



More than a v; 'at'ion

 

_Hawali Yellow Pages 

 

Apartments Doctors Realtors
Attorneys Flowers Restaurants
Auto Dealers Hotels Storage
Auto Parts Insurance Tax Preparation
Auto Repair Loans Travel
Beauty Salons Mortgages 
Car Rental Movers
Dentists Pizza

Events Calendar

 

 

Fishing buoys washing ashore - Thogardonislandoom: News 

Sections

News Sports I Opinion Lifestyles Obituaries

in Copyright 2015, Thegerdenislandmm. $13? Kuhio Hwy. Llhus. HI  Terms oi Service and Pence Policy Find Area Businesses

4of4