Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inspections And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses DHCD, BHSB on inspections and data sharing after complaints about recovery residences
Summary
Committee members raised safety and enforcement concerns after examples of overcrowded or unsanitary recovery residences; they asked DHCD, BHSB and the state to provide lists, improve 311 coordination and develop a proactive inspection plan and interagency 'tiger team.'
During the Baltimore City Council Public Health and Environment Committee hearing, members pressed city agencies over inspection practices and data coordination for recovery residences after council staff and the Special Investigations Unit reported facilities operating with overcrowded or unsafe conditions.
Councilman Torrance described an instance from his district: a recently licensed facility with 11 residents in a three‑bedroom house where some residents lacked adequate access and an agency had to pursue housing court to gain entry. “We respond with inspections after the fact. If somebody complains that they're operating outside the scope of their permit, so we don't go into the property checking for beds,” said Shay Butler Aman, deputy assistant commissioner for permits and litigation at DHCD, describing current practice.
Members, including Councilwoman Ramos, argued the city needs proactive inspections and better cross‑agency data matching between DHCD property and occupancy records and BHSB’s recovery‑residence lists. Ramos asked DHCD for the list of properties designated as supportive housing and for reasonable‑accommodation properties so the committee can cross‑reference licensing, occupancy and complaint data.
Adrien Benstein of BHSB said the local behavioral health authority will submit 311 requests when complaints about uncertified recovery residences arise and welcomed formal data‑sharing partnerships. BHSB and council members also asked the Medicaid ASO to provide audit and performance reports that can be segmented by district so council members can see complaints and performance in their constituencies.
The committee recorded several follow‑ups: DHCD agreed to seek a workable timeframe (Chair set an expectation of 30–45 days after state regulations are finalized) to adapt zoning, occupancy and inspection procedures; BHSB and DHCD were asked to provide lists of supportive housing, reasonable‑accommodation properties and known recovery residences; and the chair proposed forming an interagency team to pursue proactive inspections and improved complaint routing.
The hearing included public comment from provider Kim Wyman of PAL Recovery, who urged outcome tracking (medication access, retention, emergency events) and stronger transparency about telehealth‑heavy programs. No formal enforcement action or vote occurred during the meeting; the committee’s requests are recorded for follow up.
