Committee hears testimony backing House Bill 58 to require certificate of need, local oversight for recovery housing

The Ohio House Community Revitalization Committee held a second hearing on House Bill 58, which would establish a certificate-of-need process and give local Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health (ADAM) boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery housing, hear testimony from law enforcement, local officials and recovery stakeholders, and took no final vote.

Prosecuting attorney Shane Tinneman, who identified himself as the Scioto County prosecuting attorney, told the committee that Scioto County has seen rapid expansion of recovery housing and that some operators are “‘in it only to maximize profit at the expense of providing the client with all the tools and resources needed to advance recovery.’” He said bad actors have “alarmed their fellow neighbors, sapped resources of our first responders and law enforcement, [and] discouraged business and potential economic development.”

The bill’s proponents told lawmakers the measure is intended to preserve access to legitimate recovery services while limiting poorly run or predatory facilities. “This is not about trying to prevent recovery housing from existing,” said Edwin Martel, a former Portsmouth city councilman and Portsmouth resident. “It is about ensuring that the people inside these homes are protected, supported, and given a real chance at success.”

Susan Schultz, executive director of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board for Adams, Lawrence and Scioto counties, said recent efforts to register providers have improved visibility but left gaps. Schultz told the committee her three-county area shows differing counts depending on which registry is checked and urged clearer rules about inspections, investigator training, and a tiered fee structure. “For these inspections, will we be using a set of already existing standards, such as ORH ... or develop something new,” she asked, urging ADAM-board involvement in rule development and a phased “on-ramp” so boards can hire and train staff.

Scioto County Sheriff David Thurlman described public-safety strains he attributes to unregulated recovery housing. He told lawmakers that, on one ADAM-board list he obtained, Scioto County had 77 facilities with a reported 871 beds and that his office logged hundreds of related calls for service. “This crisis is not just about health care, it's a public safety issue and an economic strain,” Thurlman said, and he urged lawmakers to give local boards enforcement authority so they can “shut down wrongdoers.”

County and municipal officials described neighborhood impacts. South Point Mayor Jeff Gaskin said properties bought or repurposed for recovery housing have affected property values and first-time homebuyer opportunities; Pastor Joseph Sandler, who also said he is a Portsmouth city councilman and county treasurer-elect, described homes with inadequate plumbing and porta-potties in backyards and said large operators can “buy up” local housing stock. Scotty Powell, chairman of the Scioto County commissioners, compared the bill to existing oversight in other health-care sectors and called a certificate-of-need process “a second step to ensure a minimum standard of quality and care.”

Witnesses identified two existing sources of provider information: Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH) certification lists and a separate state registry maintained by the state mental health and addiction services office (referred to in testimony as OMAS/OhioMHAS). Several witnesses said the lists do not match, that bed-count fields and county fields are inconsistent between lists, and that many homes remain off any list. Multiple speakers asked for a standardized, shareable registry and for state-level standards that local ADAM boards could enforce locally.

Committee members asked implementation questions: how inspections would interact with building, fire and health codes; whether ADAM boards could hire and be funded in time to inspect; whether fees should be tiered by bed count; and whether licensing or certification should be added. Susan Schultz recommended a tiered fee tied to resident-bed numbers and warned that some ADAM boards lack levies and could not hire inspectors until fee revenue arrives. Several witnesses urged that rulemaking involve ADAM boards and providers to avoid conflicting local enforcement.

Speakers also raised operational concerns: staffing models for different recovery-housing levels (level 1 sober-living-style homes up to level 3 24-hour staffed residences), variability in who operates multiple homes, and a mix of nonprofit and for-profit operators. Sheriff Thurlman and others said courts sometimes place out-of-county residents into local recovery housing, increasing the strain on local services.

No formal action was recorded at the hearing. Committee members took testimony and asked technical and policy questions; several witnesses asked lawmakers to refine funding timing, investigator training, complaint standards and interagency data-sharing before enacting enforcement powers.

The committee acknowledged the testimonies and closed the hearing with no vote reported. Further legislative steps or committee amendments were not specified in the hearing record provided.