Audit of the Devens Enterprise Commission Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

An overview of the purpose and process of auditing the Devens Enterprise Commission.

Overview

In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Devens Enterprise Commission (DEC) for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Below is a list of our audit objectives, indicating each question we intended our audit to answer; the conclusion we reached regarding each objective; and, if applicable, where each objective is discussed in the audit findings.

Objective	Conclusion
To what extent did DEC oversee and manage affordable housing units in Devens, including compliance with the affordable housing percentages outlined in Section 5.01(4)(c)(1) of Title 974 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR)?	To a sufficient extent
To what extent did DEC ensure that public health inspections occurred, and that it tracked and followed up on failed inspections, specifically inspections regarding food safety, beach water quality, sewage trucks, hazardous material spillage, and stormwater runoff, in accordance with Section 22 of Chapter 498 of the Acts of 1993?	To some extent; see Findings 1 and 2
What role did DEC play in the assessment of the Devens Community Center for safe occupancy and arrangement for use as a temporary emergency shelter in 2022? Did DEC maintain a continuing role during the building’s use?	Minimal role; see Temporary Emergency Shelter

To accomplish our audit objectives, we gained an understanding of the internal control environment relevant to our objectives by reviewing DEC’s operating by-laws that were in place during the audit period and by interviewing DEC’s director/land administrator. In addition, to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our audit objectives, we performed the procedures described below.

Affordable Housing Units

To determine to what extent DEC oversaw and managed affordable housing units in Devens, including compliance with the affordable housing percentages outlined in 974 CMR 5.01(4)(c)(1), we took the following actions:

• We recalculated the actual affordable housing percentage by using the Devens Housing Inventory, which included addresses, types of housing (market value, low income, moderate income), and housing statuses (built or to be constructed), from DEC’s Devens Housing Affordability spreadsheet.⁸ To calculate this percentage, we took the total number of affordable housing units and divided by the total number of housing units built or to be constructed.
• We reviewed minutes from all 15 meetings held between the Metro West Collaborative Development (MCD) and the Assabet Regional Housing Consortium for evidence that DEC provided oversight of MCD’s work monitoring the affordable housing process.
• We performed a site visit and observed a judgmental, nonstatistical⁹ sample¹⁰ of 10 affordable housing units out of a population of 30 affordable housing units that were monitored by MCD to ensure that they were indistinguishable from surrounding market-value housing units and were located within Devens.
• In addition, using the above sample of 10 affordable housing units, we reviewed the following documents to assess their affordability eligibility: the property owners’ Eligibility to Purchase certifications or Certificates of Compliance, signed deed restrictions, and copies of annual recertification (if applicable).

For this objective, we found no significant issues during our testing. Therefore, we concluded that, based on our testing, DEC appropriately oversaw and managed affordable housing units in Devens, including compliance with the affordable housing percentages outlined in 974 CMR 5.01(4)(c)(1). 

Public Health Inspections

To determine to what extent DEC ensured that public health inspections occurred, and that it tracked and followed up on failed inspections, specifically inspections regarding food safety, beach water quality, sewage trucks, hazardous material spillage, and stormwater runoff, in accordance with Section 22 of Chapter 498 of the Acts of 1993, we took the actions described below.

Food Safety

We obtained a list of the 13 food establishments in Devens during the audit period that DEC identified as requiring food inspections. We obtained 29 food inspection reports from the audit period for these 13 food establishments and examined the reports for results of the inspections (i.e., whether an inspector indicated that a follow-up was required, business acknowledgements of receipt of inspection, whether the follow-up inspection report was available, and whether identified noncompliance with food safety and sanitation regulations were resolved in the next inspection). In addition, for subsequent inspections of the same business, we calculated the days between inspections. This ranged from 52 to 554 days, with the average being 277.

Beach Water Quality

We obtained from DEC and the Department of Public Health (DPH) the dates on which the Nashoba Associated Boards of Health (NABH) performed testing for Mirror Lake, the only public beach in Devens. We determined that, for the audit period, there were 22 weeks that the beach water quality needed testing, including E. coli levels, because of state mandates. We obtained information from DPH’s Environmental Public Health Tracking website regarding weeks during which E. coli levels were reported to DPH.¹¹ We obtained copies of NABH’s Beach Sampling Field Data reports (showing water clarity and sources of potential pollution) and the certificates of analysis (reporting E. coli levels) from DEC and compared the weeks of the reports that we received from DEC to the weeks reported to DPH. We examined 13 Beach Sampling Field Data reports and 19 Certificates of Analysis provided by DEC for results. All Beach Sampling Field Data reports provided by DEC showed that NABH checked the water quality and sources of potential pollution. All Certificates of Analysis provided to us by DEC, as well as the data from the DPH website, showed that E. coli levels were within normal ranges when Mirror Lake Beach was open during the audit period.

Sewage Hauling

We obtained from DEC a list of sewage truck applications and permits issued by DEC. We reviewed the population of nine companies that applied for and received permits for 20 trucks to haul sewage to the Devens Wastewater Treatment Plant during the audit period. For each of the nine companies, we reviewed the permit, the application package, and the haulage company’s acknowledgement of the policies and procedures for the audit period (based on the dates of inspection). There were no failed inspections for sewage hauling during the audit period.

Spill Prevention

We obtained a list of all six companies within Devens that DEC identified as requiring a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. We obtained copies of the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans in place during the audit period for these businesses and noted the date each plan was issued or updated. We also obtained and examined copies of the permit cards that DEC required the Devens safety officer to complete before DEC issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the businesses that started their final inspections during the audit period. There were no failed inspections for spill prevention during the audit period.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention

For stormwater runoff pollution prevention inspections related to construction, we examined the total population of 66 inspections completed during the audit period, documented through the Safety Culture Application, a web-based inspection software with various inspection templates, that DEC identified as public health–related or general construction inspections. The Safety Culture Application is only used on the DEC director/land use administrator’s smartphone. For inspections using the Project Inspection Template, which is a template in the Safety Culture Application with inspection questions, we reviewed the project inspection report line “Construction Stormwater Management” for DEC’s assessment of stormwater management. For inspections performed using the General Template, which is a template in the Safety Culture Application with inspection notes, comments, and pictures, we reviewed the DEC director’s notes for evidence of a stormwater runoff pollution prevention inspection.

For post-construction stormwater runoff pollution prevention self-inspections, we selected a random, nonstatistical sample of 35 businesses from the population of 106 businesses that were active in Devens during the audit period. DEC provided the self-inspection reports for calendar years 2021 and 2022 and a spreadsheet indicating which businesses in our sample completed self-inspections, which businesses did not complete self-inspections because of COVID-19, and which businesses completed inspections as part of a multiuse property. We verified that the entries in the spreadsheet matched the entries in our sample. We traced each business in our sample to the annual self-inspection reports from each business for calendar years 2021 and 2022 and verified that the reports were submitted on time (which, in this case, means that DEC received it within 10 business days of October 31, the annual submission due date). We worked with DEC management to understand the actions that DEC took when inspections were received or performed after the annual submission due date. DEC said in an email to us on March 12, 2025, “So as long as we receive the report before December 31st, we typically do not fine, and the company is still in compliance as they have submitted within the calendar year.”

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that, during the audit period, DEC ensured that public health inspections regarding beach water quality, sewage trucks, hazardous material spillage, and stormwater runoff occurred in accordance with Section 22 of Chapter 498 of the Acts of 1993. See Findings 1 and 2 for more information regarding the results of our testing related to public health inspections for food safety. 

Temporary Emergency Shelter

To determine what role DEC played in the assessment of the Devens Community Center for safe occupancy and arrangement for use as a temporary emergency shelter in 2022 and whether DEC maintained a continuing role during the building’s use, we interviewed DEC’s director/land use administrator and examined documentation, including, but not limited to, communications between DEC and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), press releases from the Commonwealth, and news articles. DEC established nine conditions that needed to be met for DEC to issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Bob Eisengrein Community Center so that this center could be used as an Emergency Assistance Intake Center. We then evaluated whether MEMA, which was charged with managing the Emergency Assistance Intake Center, met the required conditions.

Based on the results of our testing, we determined that, during the audit period, MEMA met the nine conditions required by DEC. Beyond these nine conditions, DEC did not have any other role in the assessment of the Devens Community Center for safe occupancy and arrangement for use as a temporary emergency shelter in 2022.

We used nonstatistical sampling methods for testing, and therefore did not project the results of our testing to any populations.

Data Reliability Assessment

Devens Housing Affordability Spreadsheet

DEC used Microsoft Excel to track the inventory of housing in Devens and to calculate the affordable housing percentage. To determine the reliability of DEC’s Devens Housing Affordability spreadsheet, we interviewed DEC’s director/land use administrator and compared the data on the Devens Housing Affordability spreadsheet to MCD’s affordable housing spreadsheet (the Devens housing units monitored by MCD), the organization DEC hired to manage the affordable housing monitoring process.

Further, we analyzed the total population of 211 housing unit records from the audit period on the spreadsheet for duplicate records and blank fields. We reviewed the date field to ensure that all housing units were available for occupancy during or before the audit period. We selected a judgmental sample of 10 units, with the sample weighted to include 5 records from 2004¹² and 5 records from other years during which housing units were newly constructed or buildings were renovated to allow occupancy. We traced the dates on the spreadsheet to the occupancy dates on the Certificates of Occupancy. When the year in the date on a Certificate of Occupancy did not match the year in the date column on the Devens Affordable Housing spreadsheet, we worked with DEC management to resolve the reasons for the discrepancies.

Safety Culture Application

DEC used the Safety Culture Application to record the results of inspections performed on Devens construction projects, chemical spills, and complaints (such as noise levels or trucks not on truck-route streets). To determine the reliability of the Safety Culture Application, we interviewed DEC’s director/land use administrator and reviewed the vendor-provided System and Organization Control II report[2] for information system controls in place over the security, access, configuration, and contingency planning of the Safety Culture Application.

Further, we performed a walkthrough of the Safety Culture Application with DEC’s director/land use administrator because the Safety Culture Application was only used on his smartphone. During our walkthrough, we observed the following:

• the login process;
• examples of completed templates (completed inspections);
• how the user downloads an inspection report as a PDF file;
• the list of available templates;
• how the users share templates; and
• how in-progress and completed inspections are viewed.

In-progress and completed inspections are organized in the Safety Culture Application by date. In follow-up discussions after the walkthrough, we also obtained password requirements and session lock timing information.

Public Health Inspections

To determine the reliability of the list of 106 businesses that were active in Devens during the audit period, we traced a sample of 13 businesses from the list provided to a list of businesses available on the Devens Community website.

We obtained lists from DEC of the 13 food establishments in Devens during the audit period that DEC identified as requiring food inspections; sewage truck permits issued by DEC; and six companies within Devens that DEC identified as requiring Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. We relied on these lists because they were the only available sources of the data for our audit purposes.

Based on the results of the data reliability assessment procedures described above, we determined that the information we obtained was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our audit.

8.    DEC tracks Devens’s compliance with 974 CMR 5.01(4)(c)(1) by using Microsoft Excel to calculate affordable housing unit percentages.

9.    Auditors use nonstatistical sampling to select items for audit testing when a population is very small, the population items are not similar enough, or there are specific items in the population that the auditors want to review.

10.    The sample was weighted to include eight housing units from 2004 and two from other years where housing units were newly constructed or buildings were renovated to allow occupancy. We selected eight housing units from 2004 because there were 24 affordable housing units eligible for occupancy that year.

11.    There was no DPH reported information for the week of August 14, 2022.

12.    For purposes of this audit, “records from 2004” means that the housing unit was redeveloped in 2001 and was sold and made available for occupancy between 2001 and 2004. DEC listed these records as 2004 for general tracking purposes. We included records from 2004 because 57% (120) of the total population of housing units from the audit period (211) were eligible for occupancy that year.

13.    A System and Organization Control report, issued by an independent contractor, is a report on controls about a service organization’s systems relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy.

Date published:	June 16, 2025