Ohio committee hears testimony supporting House Bill 58 to regulate recovery housing

COLUMBUS — Supporters of House Bill 58 told the Ohio House Community Revitalization Committee on Oct. 12 that rapid growth in recovery housing has outpaced local oversight and harmed neighborhoods, and they urged lawmakers to give local agencies a formal inspection and enforcement role.

Shane Tinneman, prosecuting attorney for Scioto County, said the county has seen a substantial increase in recovery housing and a corresponding rise in bad operators. "Ultimately, the goal should be to keep the good actors and eliminate the bad actors," Tinneman said, arguing House Bill 58 would give local officials tools to investigate complaints and inspect facilities.

The bill would create a certificate‑of‑need process for recovery housing and authorize local Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services (ADAM) boards to inspect and investigate facilities, supporters said. That structure, witnesses said, would help distribute services more evenly across the state and let counties address sites that generate frequent calls for police, fire and emergency medical services.

Why it matters: Committee witnesses described harms they attribute to unregulated recovery homes — emergency‑service strain, neighborhood complaints, property‑market disruptions and operators they said are motivated primarily by profit. Sheriff David Thurlman of Scioto County told the panel the situation is a public‑safety issue as well as a public‑health one: "This crisis is not just about health care, it's a public safety issue," he said, citing thousands of calls for service tied to recovery providers in recent years.

What witnesses said - Shane Tinneman, Scioto County prosecuting attorney, said his office now focuses on traffickers but that some recovery housing operators provide minimal supervision and bring repeated police calls. He said Scioto has both "some of the finest treatment providers" and bad actors that hurt neighborhoods.

- Edwin Martel, a former Portsmouth city councilman, said zoning and building codes in his city were outdated and that some homes lacked basic services: "These are supposed to be places of healing yet they are being operated by some with inadequate oversight or safety measures for the people inside them," he said.

- Susan Schultz, executive director of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services Board for Adams, Lawrence and Scioto counties, told the committee her three‑county board counted 201 recovery houses by combining the Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH) certification list and the Ohio Mental Health and Addiction registry. Schultz supported the bill but asked for clarity on inspection standards, training for investigators, the fee structure (she recommended tiered fees by bed count) and a timeline for local boards to ramp up.

- Sheriff David Thurlman said his office logged hundreds of calls for service related to recovery providers and described situations in which individuals placed from other counties were left without local support when placements failed.

- Jeff Gaskin, mayor of South Point in Lawrence County, said his village of about 4,000 residents has "300% more treatment than we need" and described sales and rental impacts when single‑family homes are converted to group recovery houses.

- Pastor Joseph Sandler, who said he also serves on Portsmouth city council and is county treasurer‑elect, described effects on first‑time buyers and rental markets and said some operators buy homes with cash. He said he "stand[s] in full support of House Bill 58."

- Scotty Powell, chairman of the Scioto County commissioners, framed the bill as a second step after recent registration requirements: "By supporting House Bill 58, you are taking the second step to ensure a minimum standard of quality and care," he said.

Details and unanswered questions: Witnesses offered varying counts and estimates. Tinneman described Scioto County's population as about 76,000; Sheriff Thurlman cited a U.S. Census figure of 71,969 (July 2023) when listing local context. Susan Schultz said her three‑county ADAM board recorded 201 recovery homes and roughly 1,600 beds combined; she noted those lists do not capture providers that have not registered with state systems. Several witnesses recommended that the state align and standardize the Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH) list and the state registry to produce consistent data on addresses, bed counts and operator ownership.

Implementation concerns: ADAM boards, which vary in staffing and funding, told lawmakers they would likely need fee revenue from certificate filings to hire and train inspectors. Schultz noted some local boards have no levy and cannot absorb inspection costs without the fee revenue the bill would provide; she urged a staged "on‑ramp" and a tiered application fee to reflect facility size.

Limitations and committee follow‑ups: Several committee members pressed witnesses on how inspections would interact with existing building, fire and health codes and on whether the Department named in the bill should write rules or whether more details should be placed in statute. Witnesses said they prefer ADAM boards participate in standards development and urged state minimums, with local enforcement. Witnesses also raised staffing and quality‑measurement questions — for example, how to verify staffing levels and outcomes — but offered no firm data on treatment success rates.

What comes next: Committee members asked for additional data and clarity on registration, certification overlap, fee structures and the proposed inspection process. No vote or formal action on the bill was recorded in the hearing transcript.

Ending: Supporters told the committee they are not opposed to recovery housing but want minimum standards, local enforcement and clearer data so communities and people in recovery are protected and neighborhoods are not overwhelmed.