Ohio committee hears testimony on House Bill 58 to require certificate of need for recovery housing

The Ohio House Community Revitalization Committee heard testimony on House Bill 58, a proposal to require a certificate of need for recovery housing and give local Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health (ADAM) boards authority to inspect and investigate facilities. Prosecutors, law enforcement, county officials and treatment-system leaders described rapid growth of recovery homes, uneven oversight and community strain, and urged the committee to adopt clearer statewide standards with local enforcement.

House Community Revitalization Committee members convened for a second hearing on HB 58 after the chair called the bill forward. Shane Tinneman, identified by the committee as the prosecuting attorney for Scioto County, described a local recovery-housing market he said contains both effective providers and “bad actors.” "These bad actors have alarmed their fellow neighbors, sapped resources of our first responders and law enforcement, discouraged business and potential economic development," Tinneman said, recounting emails and patrol reports that described overdoses, fights and unsupervised houses.

Why it matters: supporters told the committee that some counties have many more recovery houses than local services and inspectors can track, creating public-safety, housing-market and public-tax concerns. "This bill is not anti recovery housing. This bill is pro recovery, pro safety, and pro community," said Edwin Martel, a former Portsmouth city councilman who testified in favor of the bill.

Several witnesses gave concrete counts and operational concerns. Susan Schultz, executive director of the ADAM Board for Adams, Lawrence and Scioto counties, told the committee, "In my 3 county board area, we currently have a total of 201 recovery houses, 11 in Adams County, 80 in Lawrence County, and a 10 in Sciota County." Schultz said the figure comes from combining lists maintained by Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH) and the state registry and stressed many houses still do not register. Sheriff David Thurlman of Scioto County said his office recorded hundreds of calls for service tied to recovery providers and described the situation as more than a health issue: "This crisis is not just about health care, it's a public safety issue ... a direct threat to the quality of life for the residents."

Supporters told the committee HB 58 would: create a certificate-of-need process to limit overconcentration of facilities in a single community; authorize ADAM boards to inspect and investigate complaints; and create a fee structure to fund local oversight. Scottie Powell, chairman of the Scioto County commissioners, drew a parallel to health-care licensing and said certificate-of-need rules would distribute services more evenly across the state and protect quality.

Local officials and board staff asked for amendments or clarifications. Schultz urged the committee to specify which standards would drive inspections (for example, use of ORH or other existing certification standards), how investigators would be trained, and recommended a tiered fee rather than a flat $250 application fee so smaller homes pay less. She also warned that local boards could not hire inspectors until fees were available and that state rulemaking and funding distribution could take time.

Committee members asked multiple witnesses whether existing state lists and ORH certification were sufficient and how to avoid overlap among fire, building, health and ADAM board inspections. Witnesses suggested the state should set baseline standards, with local boards empowered to investigate and enforce. Several witnesses also said many residents in recovery are placed in counties outside their home by courts and treatment-referral networks, creating local capacity strains.

Mayor Jeff Gaskin of South Point, who said his village has more treatment services than it needs, described local housing- and real-estate impacts and urged safeguards. Pastor Joseph Sandler, who also serves in local government and as a realtor, described instances of houses lacking hot water and plumbing and said that unregulated operators can change neighborhoods rapidly.

No formal committee vote or amendment was recorded at the hearing. Committee members closed the hearing after receiving written testimony from additional stakeholders and invited further follow-up and information from witnesses.

Ending: The committee left the record open for additional written materials and signaled that members expect further language and technical changes before any formal floor action. The bill sponsor and staff were asked to weigh in on standards, fee structure, training and a timeline for rulemaking before the committee advances the measure.