The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General wrote how Union City “did not adequately document its compliance with procurement requirements,” though no “significant concerns” were identified.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
“As a result of our audit, we concluded that Union City experienced technical issues that compromised the performance of some of the equipment purchased with grant funding. This audit did not identify significant concerns regarding Union City’s budget management and control, drawdowns, or Federal Financial Reports,” the DOJ OIG said in a 29-page audit report released yesterday.
“However, we identified unsupported costs totaling over $1.6 million because Union City did not adequately document its compliance with procurement requirements. We also identified needed improvements to Union City’s written procedures for procurement, progress reporting, and property management systems.”
The federal agency reviewed two Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants: One issued on September 30th, 2022 for $1.1 million and the second issued on on September 26th, 2023 for $1.2 million.
The project period for the grants ranged from March 2022 through March 2026. As of May 2025, Union City drew down a cumulative amount of $1,642,364 for the two aforementioned grants reviewed.
“We identified concerns related to Union City’s procurement activities, including its use of state of New Jersey contracts and other city contracts. Union City did not provide evidence that its use of those agreements was compliant with federal requirements. As a result, we questioned $1,696,808 as unsupported,” the federal agency wrote in the report.
“We also found Union City’s written procurement procedures were incomplete related to the use of state and city contracts, procurement documentation and record retention, and checking contractors for possible suspension and debarment. We also found Union City did not have a conflict-of-interest policy.”
The OIG also wrote that the equipment – which was CCTV cameras, mobile data terminals, interview room, and police garage cameras – was not adequately tracked via performance reports, nor were they given the mandatory biannual inspections.
They also noted that when on site, it was clear that certain CCTV cameras were not working.
“While on site with Union City police officers, we inspected examples of the cameras purchased with the grants … Additionally, police officers demonstrated for us the city’s video management system that allows officers to view live streamed and recorded videos,” the OIG said via the report.
“However, during these demonstrations, we noticed videos from some cameras were not able to be seen. The officers told us that this was due to interference and capacity issues of the wireless network and that Union City has been working on solutions with the vendor.”
They also wrote that officers admitted that there had been instances where recordings were not available for certain criminal investigations since the camera(s) unexpectedly went offline, which was not mentioned in any progress reports.
Overall, the OIG recommended that the COPS Office work with Union City on eight separate recommendations for maximum efficiency with future grant efforts.
Those include ensuring that the CCTV cameras are working and providing additional technical assistance if needed, making sure Union City submits progress reports with complete information, and developing accurate grant expenditure records.
Further, the OIG recommends the COPS Office coordinates with Union City to remedy the $1.6 million in supported equipment purchases and costs, as well as to improve their procedural manual, revise their procurement procedures, and develop a system to complete inspections on grant-funded equipment every two years.
In an April 1st letter from Union City CFO Tammy Zucca and Police Chief Walter Laurencio to the OIG, they addressed all eight recommendations listed in the audit report.
“It was noted that during the site Inspection there was interference and capability issues with the wireless network. The UCPD works closely with the network vendor to assure all cameras are operational. When certain issues occur, the vendor is contacted immediately to rectify the issue,” the two city officials wrote.
” … In 2026, we will be hiring a new appraisal company to do a complete inventory and have advised them that all assets that are purchased with federal or state grant funds must be reported separately and easily identifiable in the report. We appreciate the recommendations and will assure that corrective action is taken on each.”
Classic example of trying to slip one by the auditors.
TLDR: The product fails, but the city doesnt qualify that as a “challege” becasue they are working on it with the vendor. The auditors went soft tbh.
From the Audit:
“We reviewed a sample of responses provided by Union City in the most recent progress reports and found
that the information provided was accurate.
However, we believe responses to a particular question were incomplete. Specifically, a question in the report required grantees to discuss the status of each goal and include any barriers or challenges they have experienced in implementing the project. We determined that Union City did not include in any progress report the aforementioned problems with CCTV cameras we identified in our assessment of program goals. Officials who prepared these reports told us they did not include this information because they have been working with the vendor to address the issues as necessary.”