Inola residents will decide the fate of a massive aluminum smelter in a town-wide vote next spring. Until then, city officials have paused heavy industrial development — including the aluminum smelting facility, which would be the largest in the country.
Inola's town council voted unanimously in favor of extending the moratorium through April 7, 2027. They originally enacted the pause on development in late June, and it expired at the end of August.
The five-member council also voted unanimously to put an initiative petition that would ban primary aluminum smelting within town limits on the April 7 ballot.
"I'm going to stand with my community," said Mayor Darlene Shear. "I am against the smelter plant… I don't feel that I've been given the information that I need to know in my heart that everything is safe."
The smelter issue has become a lightning rod, garnering strong opposition from local residents who fear its impact on the community and support from President Donald Trump for its potential national security benefits.
Dozens signed up to share their thoughts on the smelter before the town council considered its agenda items. Many asked for the council to extend the moratorium and send the smelter ban measure to a vote of the people.
Chris Thomas was among them. They're from nearby Verdigris and currently attend Rogers State University in Claremore.
"Word around the school is if this smelter goes in we're going to get our diplomas and we're going to head out," Thomas said. "Most of us, we don't have kids, we don't have property. And we're just graduating. So if we're going to build a life somewhere, we want it to be somewhere that's not toxic."
Angela Jungbluth also spoke to the council ahead of their votes, asking for them to extend the moratorium and advance the initiative petition to a vote.
"We poured our entire lives into this little farm that we have," Jungbluth said. "We hope to pass it down to our kids. And the smelter threatens that completely, the peaceful agrarian lifestyle that we had hoped for."
At the June meeting where the moratorium was originally implemented, federal and state officials attended to voice support for the smelter. None offered public comment at Monday's meeting.
When the council voted to extend the moratorium, the crowd of nearly 300 erupted into a standing ovation. Thomas said it had reinstated their faith in the governing system. Jungbluth agreed.
"I think I was the loudest one screaming up there in positivity," Jungbluth said. "It was the best outcome I could have ever hoped for."
Hurdles remain for initiative petition
The citizen-led initiative petition to ban smelting garnered 201 valid signatures. But the deputy town clerk said that wasn't sufficient, resulting in a lawsuit.
According to state law, the number of signatures on a municipal initiative petition must be at least a quarter of the votes cast in the municipality's most recent town-wide election. For Inola, that was the April 2023 town council race, in which 288 ballots were cast.
But the town argued the law isn't based on ballots, it's based on votes. And in the three-seat town council race, Inolans cast 944 total votes. Using that number, the initiative petition would require 236 signatures.
Earlier this month, a Rogers County judge determined the initiative petition had enough signatures and ordered the town council to proceed with considering it.
Representatives from Century Aluminum, Oklahoma Primary Aluminum and the Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority intervened in the matter, asking the court to prevent the Inola town council from considering the petition until the court could hear their input next month.
The judge denied that request, clearing the way for the Inola town council to consider the initiative petition Monday night. Their options were to adopt the ordinance immediately or put it to a town-wide vote in spring of 2027, as they ultimately opted to do.
Legal challenges of the moratorium are also possible.
Oklahoma Primary Aluminum, the company behind the smelter, threatened legal action ahead of the first moratorium vote in June, as did Tulsa Ports' lawyer.
"Given the tens of millions of dollars already invested in the property and Project, Oklahoma Primary Aluminum would have an obligation to its stakeholders to pursue available legal remedies to recover those investment losses," Oklahoma Primary Aluminum Executive Director Ziad Fares wrote. "Such litigation would impose substantial expense on Inola."