Ohio committee hears testimony on House Bill 58 to certify and regulate recovery housing

Columbus — Members of the Ohio House Community Revitalization Committee held a second hearing on House Bill 58 on Monday, hearing two hours of testimony from prosecutors, county officials, law-enforcement leaders and recovery-service providers who urged lawmakers to create a certificate-of-need process and local enforcement to address unregulated recovery housing.

The bill, described by proponents as the Recovering Housing Certificate of Need Program, would require operators to obtain state approval before opening recovery houses and would give local Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services (ADAM) boards authority to inspect facilities, investigate complaints and, in some cases, close facilities that fail to meet standards. “This bill is not anti recovery housing. This bill is pro recovery, pro safety, and pro community,” Edwin Martel, a former Portsmouth city councilman, told the committee.

Why it matters: Witnesses said a rapid expansion of recovery housing in parts of southern Ohio has produced both high-quality programs and operators who, they say, prioritize profit over residents’ safety. Law-enforcement and local officials told the committee that unregulated homes can strain police, fire and emergency medical services and depress local housing markets when multiple group homes cluster in single neighborhoods.

Testimony and concerns

Shane Tinneman, identified by the committee as the prosecuting attorney for Scioto County, described his county as an early epicenter of the opioid crisis and said recovery housing has grown rapidly alongside treatment providers. He told lawmakers that many providers operate responsibly but that “bad actors” have emerged who “are in it only to maximize profit at the expense of providing the client with all the tools and resources needed to advance recovery.” Tinneman said those operations can produce repeated calls for police and emergency services and undermine neighborhood stability.

Edwin Martel said zoning and code enforcement in Portsmouth lagged behind the industry’s growth. He described homes lacking basic utilities and said attempts to regulate these properties sometimes prompted legal threats from operators. “We shouldn’t love our recovery community any less than our retirement community,” Martel said, urging lawmakers to adopt safeguards to protect tenants and neighborhoods.

Susan Schultz, executive director of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board for Adams, Lawrence and Scioto counties, told the panel her board’s registry shows about 201 recovery houses across the three counties (11 in Adams County, about 80 in Lawrence County and about 10 in Scioto County) but that the lists do not include unregistered providers. Schultz urged clearer standards for inspections, training for investigators and a fee structure tied to facility size; she said some ADAM boards lack levies and would need an implementation “on‑ramp” because fees might take more than a year to reach local budgets.

Scioto County Sheriff David Thurlman characterized the problem as both public-health and public-safety related. He said his office had recorded hundreds of calls for service tied to recovery providers and that judges around the state sometimes order placements in Scioto County. “This crisis is not just about health care, it's a public safety issue,” Thurlman said, and he urged oversight to prevent exploitation of vulnerable people and communities.

Local officials said the market has shifted: Jeff Gaskin, mayor of South Point, said his village of about 4,000 has six treatment or overnight homes and that some buyers are avoiding neighborhoods with clustered group homes. Pastor Joseph Sandler, who also serves on Portsmouth city council and as county treasurer-elect, said recovery housing has changed the first-time homebuyer and rental markets when operators pay cash to convert single-family homes into group facilities.

Supporters of the bill, including Scioto County Commissioner Scotty Powell, said licensing and a certificate-of-need process would mirror rules in other health-care sectors and help distribute services to underserved counties. Powell said the initial requirement to register operators gave officials a baseline, but the certificate-of-need would be the next step to set minimum quality standards and reduce concentrated clustering.

Outstanding questions

Witnesses and committee members raised operational questions that the bill, as drafted, leaves to state rulemaking: which existing standards (for example, Ohio Recovery Housing certification or other accreditation schemes) would be used for inspections; how investigators would be trained; how ADAM boards would be funded and whether application fees should be tiered by bed count; and what data reporting or licensure requirements should accompany a certificate-of-need.

No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. Committee members asked witnesses to provide additional details, including lists of providers, bed counts and evidence about placements from other counties.

What’s next

Committee members said they expect further conversations with stakeholders as they consider whether to place more detail in statute or leave implementation to department rules. Several witnesses said they favored local boards participating in rule development and recommended a phased implementation to allow boards time to hire and train inspectors.

Ending note: Testimony on HB 58 reflected broad agreement that recovery housing can be an important part of treatment but differed on how to ensure quality and protect communities; lawmakers signaled they will weigh statutory language and rulemaking approaches before advancing the measure.