Committee hears first testimony on bill to create certificate-of-need for recovery housing

The House Community Revitalization Committee heard sponsor testimony on House Bill 58, which would create a certificate-of-need for recovery housing, shift certification costs from taxpayers to providers and give local ADAM boards authority to inspect, investigate and close noncompliant facilities.

Representative Pazuli, sponsor of the bill, told the committee the proposal is aimed at curbing what he called “bad actors” who exploit recovery housing for profit and, in some cases, skirt local zoning by invoking the Americans with Disabilities Act. “This bill isn't about targeting legitimate providers. It's about ensuring accountability and safeguarding our citizens,” Pazuli said in opening testimony. Pazuli said the bill would impose a modest bed fee of 69¢ per bed per day, shift certification costs to providers and allow local oversight to address fraud and safety concerns.

Why it matters: Sponsors said the proposal responds to overcrowding, alleged criminal activity, and strains on local services that they attribute to unregulated recovery homes. Pazuli cited a mapping report and county-level figures—saying 21 counties have little to no recovery housing while 22 counties operate beyond capacity—as evidence of uneven distribution. He and other supporters described cases of arson, human trafficking and ambulance services stretched thin as local communities contend with problem facilities.

Key provisions and arguments - Certificate of need (CON): HB58 would require CONs to control the distribution of recovery housing so communities are not overwhelmed while others remain underserved. - Local enforcement: The bill would give local ADAM boards authority to inspect facilities, investigate complaints, and shut down operators deemed unsafe or fraudulent. - Fee and funding: Sponsors proposed a bed fee of 69¢ per bed per day to fund enforcement at the local level; the bill’s sponsors said this shifts costs from taxpayers to providers. Pazuli compared the proposed fee with nursing-home bed fees, noting nursing homes pay substantially more per bed per day. - Inspections and oversight: Sponsors said the bill authorizes unannounced inspections and additional enforcement powers that, they argued, are lacking under current statewide certification and complaint processes.

Testimony, questions and concerns Representative Jerrells (assistant minority leader), who joined Pazuli in testimony, emphasized recovery housing’s potential benefit when run well: “Recovery housing can be and often is a lifeline for individuals rebuilding their lives after addiction,” Jerrells said, while supporting stronger accountability measures to separate legitimate providers from exploitative operators.

Several committee members raised concerns about how the bill would affect faith-based and transitional living homes. Representative Salvo said two local transitional living homes in her district had received notices of potential closure tied to certification differences between “transitional living” and “recovery homes,” and noted many such homes are supported entirely by faith-based donations rather than public funding.

Ranking Member Brewer proposed adjustments and asked about enforcement and criminal penalties. “The 69¢ bed fee — is there a possibility of raising it to $1?” Brewer asked, and he suggested including explicit time limits for appeals to prevent protracted litigation. Brewer also asked whether the bill includes criminal penalties and coordination with local law enforcement for serious crimes such as human trafficking.

Representative Gross questioned whether strengthening licensure rather than creating a new CON could address quality and enforcement. Pazuli and other sponsors said licensure created in the last budget did not provide sufficient enforcement “teeth,” and that a CON is intended to prevent geographic oversaturation even of otherwise compliant providers.

Administrative process and existing authorities Sponsors described the current complaint process as slow and nonanonymous: complaints typically go to Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH), which may refer to OMAS and then to the attorney general or a local prosecutor. Sponsors said that multi-step referral processes have left communities without timely remedies and that local ADAM boards, if empowered, could respond more quickly.

Committee next steps No vote was taken. Sponsors said they are open to further meetings with stakeholders to refine the bill, including possible changes to the bed fee, adding appeal time limits, and clarifying enforcement mechanisms and criminal penalties.

Ending House Bill 58 was introduced for its first hearing and drew bipartisan questions on implementation, impacts on faith-based providers, and enforcement authority. Committee members and sponsors agreed on the need for additional stakeholder meetings; the bill’s next procedural steps were not decided at the hearing.