Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 122
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 122.22 (2026)

Grant eligibility

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 29, 1999
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 283 - 123rd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) In order to be eligible for a grant under section 122.20 of the Revised Code, the applicant shall demonstrate both of the following to the director of development:

(1) That the applicant is proposing to carry out the purposes described in section 122.20 of the Revised Code in an entity that has been designated as an eligible area by the director of development under division (A) of section 122.21 of the Revised Code;

(2) The applicant's capacity to undertake and oversee the project, as evidenced by documentation of the applicant's past performance in economic development projects.

(B) In order for an applicant to be eligible for a grant under section 122.20 of the Revised Code, the governing body of the entity that has been designated as an eligible area by the director of development in accordance with division (A) of section 122.21 of the Revised Code shall, by resolution or ordinance, do all of the following:

(1) Designate the applicant that will carry out the purposes described in section 122.20 of the Revised Code and that qualifies as one of the five categories of eligible applicant listed in division (B) of section 122.19 of the Revised Code;

(2) Specify the eligible area's financial participation in the project;

(3) Include a marketing strategy to be utilized in administering the project that includes details used in past successful projects;

(4) Identify a management plan for the project.

(C) A governing body may designate the political subdivision it governs to be an eligible applicant.

(D) In order to be eligible for a grant under section 122.20 of the Revised Code for land acquisition, infrastructure improvements, or renovation of existing structures in order to develop an industrial park site for a distressed area, labor surplus area, or situational distress area as defined in section 122.19 of the Revised Code that also is a distressed area, labor surplus area, or situational distress area as defined in section 122.23 of the Revised Code, an applicant must be approved as a grant applicant by resolution of the legislative authority of each county containing any area that has been designated as an eligible area by the director of development under division (A) of section 122.21 of the Revised Code and whose governing body has designated the applicant to seek a grant for any of these purposes on behalf of the eligible area. The director shall adopt rules in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code establishing criteria for the legislative authority to use in determining whether to approve a qualified applicant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: State ex rel. Ware v. Akron (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 624 (Ohio 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Ware v. Akron (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 624 (Ohio 2021). “But that claim overlooks both the city’s failure to respond for nearly nine months and the city’s apparent failure to include the invoices with its responsive letters.”
Ne. Ohio Apt. Ass'n v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 699 N.E.2d 534 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “See R.C. 122.22, 305.09, and 305.11. If the facts show that the resolutions in this case were adopted in secrecy and the Board president failed to sign them as well, then as a matter of law summary judgment was correctly granted.”
State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2023 Ohio 3382 (Ohio 2023). “See R.C. 122.22(C); White at 423. {¶ 60} Of course, Ames’s claim for damages is premised not on the Open Meetings Act,1 but on the Public Records Act.”
Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus & Ohio River R.R., 771 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “The trial court erred in finding the commission violated R.C. 122.22(G) because it deliberated over the Panhandle selection process, Resolution 97-13, and the operating agreement without properly specifying a statutorily allowed reason to discuss those subjects.”
Warthman v. Genoa Twp. Bd. of Trs., 2011 Ohio 1775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “{¶100} R.C. 122.22(G)(3) provides, {¶101} “(G)(1) of this section, the motion and vote to hold that executive session shall state which one or more of the approved purposes listed in division (G)(1) of this Delaware County, Case No.”
State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2019 Ohio 3237 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Given the plain language excepting R.C. 122.22 from the frivolous conduct statute, R.”
State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2024 Ohio 146 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 122.22(H) provides that formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an open meeting of the public body.”
Kanter v. Cleveland Hts., 2017 Ohio 1038 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Finally, Kanter requested reasonable attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 122.22(I)(2)(a). {¶5} Cleveland Heights moved to dismiss Kanter’s complaint pursuant to Civ.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 122.22(C): 1 case
State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2023 Ohio 3382 (Ohio 2023). “See R.C. 122.22(C); White at 423. {¶ 60} Of course, Ames’s claim for damages is premised not on the Open Meetings Act,1 but on the Public Records Act.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 122.22(G): 1 case
Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus & Ohio River R.R., 771 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “The trial court erred in finding the commission violated R.C. 122.22(G) because it deliberated over the Panhandle selection process, Resolution 97-13, and the operating agreement without properly specifying a statutorily allowed reason to discuss those subjects.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 122.22(G)(3): 1 case
Warthman v. Genoa Twp. Bd. of Trs., 2011 Ohio 1775 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “{¶100} R.C. 122.22(G)(3) provides, {¶101} “(G)(1) of this section, the motion and vote to hold that executive session shall state which one or more of the approved purposes listed in division (G)(1) of this Delaware County, Case No.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 122.22(H): 1 case
State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2024 Ohio 146 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 122.22(H) provides that formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an open meeting of the public body.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 122.22(I)(2)(a): 1 case
Kanter v. Cleveland Hts., 2017 Ohio 1038 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Finally, Kanter requested reasonable attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 122.22(I)(2)(a). {¶5} Cleveland Heights moved to dismiss Kanter’s complaint pursuant to Civ.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 122.22(I)(3): 1 case
State ex rel. Ware v. Akron (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 624 (Ohio 2021). “But that claim overlooks both the city’s failure to respond for nearly nine months and the city’s apparent failure to include the invoices with its responsive letters.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.