Ohio committee hears broad support for House Bill 58 to regulate recovery housing

The House Community Revitalization Committee held a hearing on House Bill 58 on Wednesday to consider a state certificate‑of‑need program for recovery housing, hearing testimony from prosecutors, county commissioners, local officials and treatment‑system managers who said unregulated growth of recovery homes has strained emergency services and produced unsafe living conditions for some residents.

Supporters told the committee that HB 58 would require registration, allow local Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services (ADAM) boards to inspect and investigate facilities, create a local complaint process and provide a funding mechanism for oversight. "House Bill 58 also provides a fair mechanism to fund these local efforts and ensures that the locality can handle the needs and issues of this particular industry," said Shane Tinneman, the Scioto County prosecuting attorney, who testified that bad actors in treatment and recovery housing have harmed neighborhoods and overburdened first responders.

Why it matters: witnesses said the number of recovery houses has grown rapidly in parts of southern Ohio and that current state lists and certification processes are incomplete or inconsistent, leaving counties unable to track locations, staffing or bed counts. Susan Schultz, executive director of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services Board of Adams, Lawrence and Scioto counties, told the panel her board's combined area now shows 201 recovery houses (11 in Adams, 80 in Lawrence and 110 in Scioto) per state lists, and around 1,600 beds across the three counties. Sheriff David Thurlman submitted a county list that showed 77 facilities and 871 beds for Scioto County alone; witnesses and committee members noted those figures do not match and said the mismatch complicates oversight and planning.

Testimony and concerns

Prosecuting Attorney: Shane Tinneman described the local experience in Scioto County—population he said is roughly 76,000—saying recovery housing has grown with treatment providers but that some operators appear primarily profit‑driven. He read excerpts of law‑enforcement emails describing repeated overdose calls, group‑house disturbances and resident complaints. Tinneman said HB 58 would "bring teeth to the local community through its local agencies to complete inspections and investigate complaints," enabling locals who "have their boots on the ground" to police problematic facilities.

Former city councilman and resident perspective: Edwin Martel, a former Portsmouth city councilman and constituent, said his investigation found zoning and code gaps, homes without hot water or plumbing and resistance from some operators when municipalities tried to regulate. "This is not about trying to prevent recovery housing from existing. It is about ensuring that the people inside these homes are protected, supported, and given a real chance at success," Martel said.

ADAM board executive: Susan Schultz said state registries now provide two separate lists — one from Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH) and one from the state registry maintained by what witnesses referred to as OMAS — but the lists are not uniform. She said her board received the most up‑to‑date combined list only recently and that 48 homes appeared on an ORH list but not on the state registry. Schultz urged that ADAM boards be involved in developing inspection and investigation standards, recommended a tiered application fee rather than a flat $250 fee and warned boards may lack the staff and levy funding to begin enforcement immediately.

Law enforcement and public‑safety testimony: Scioto County Sheriff David Thurlman told the committee that recovery housing growth is a public‑safety and resources issue as well as a treatment issue. He cited 456 calls for service tied to eight listed recovery providers during a roughly two‑year period and said ambulance availability has been affected. Thurlman said courts have placed individuals in county programs from other jurisdictions and that some placements fail, leaving people homeless or reoffending.

Local government: South Point Mayor Jeff Gaskin and Scioto County Commissioner Scottie Powell said their communities host far more recovery beds than local populations would predict and expressed support for measures that would limit concentrated sprawl of houses and encourage services in underserved counties. Powell and others said HB 58 could drive operators to expand into underserved areas rather than cluster where services and buildings are cheap.

Panel questions and implementation issues

Committee members pressed witnesses on implementation questions the bill leaves to administrative rulemaking: who would set standards, how ADAM boards would be trained, what inspections would include, how long it would take to receive fees and hire investigators, and whether fees should be tiered by bed count. Schultz said boards need an "on‑ramp" and time to develop staff and training; she said fee revenues could take a year to arrive and recommended a tiered fee tied to bed numbers.

Several witnesses noted gaps in data: some facilities are registered with ORH but not on the state registry, and neither list consistently includes county or bed counts. Witnesses urged that data fields be standardized and shared with local boards (subject to applicable privacy and statutory limits).

What HB 58 would do (as described by witnesses)

- Create a certificate‑of‑need process for recovery housing to limit overconcentration in single communities. - Authorize ADAM boards to inspect facilities, investigate complaints and seek enforcement against substandard operators. - Provide an application fee (witnesses asked for a tiered structure) to fund hiring and training of local investigators; witnesses warned of time lags before funds become available. - Rely on state rulemaking for some standards; witnesses requested ADAM board involvement in drafting rules and clearer guidance on which existing standards (for example, ORH certification) would be used.

No formal committee vote was recorded at the hearing. Witnesses representing law enforcement, local government, ADAM boards and county commissioners urged passage; they said common problems include inconsistent registration, inadequate staffing in some homes, for‑profit operators who prioritize revenue, and placement of people from other counties without follow‑up arrangements. Several witnesses emphasized they support recovery services but want minimum standards and local authority to enforce them.

Next steps

Committee members did not take a final vote at the hearing. Multiple witnesses offered to provide lists and data to the committee for follow‑up; ADAM board executives asked for clearer language on inspection scope and training timelines. The hearing record shows broad stakeholder interest in HB 58 but identifies implementation questions the committee may need to address in amendment or rule drafting.

Sources: testimonies and exchanges on the record before the House Community Revitalization Committee, including statements by Shane Tinneman (Scioto County prosecuting attorney), Edwin Martel (former Portsmouth city councilman), Susan Schultz (executive director, ADAM Board for Adams, Lawrence and Scioto counties), Sheriff David Thurlman, Mayor Jeff Gaskin, Pastor Joseph Sandler and Scioto County Commissioner Scottie Powell.