INOLA, Okla. — Inside the high school’s gym to fit a large crowd on hand Sept. 14, the Inola Town Council unanimously extended a moratorium on aluminum production through a town election day April 7, 2027.
An hour of impassioned public comments in the gymnasium — filled by at least 200 residents cooled by fans, not air conditioning — preceded an executive session.
Town trustees would then discuss with the town attorney the considering of an extension of a moratorium on any smelter development through the date of a potential town referendum on the project. That was made possible by a successful petition last month that got 201 signatures and has since been challenged in court.
Wishes to extend the moratorium included 11-year-old Josie Hamilton.
“Please don’t gamble with our future,” Hamilton said at the microphone before cheers. “Please protect our home. Please protect Inola.”
After an hour-long discussion behind closed doors, Mayor Darlene Shear led the council in motioning for the moratorium extension, then approving the April 7 municipal election date.
“I want to stand with my community,” Mayor Shear said to attendees before the council vote. “I’m against the smelter plant. I have listened to everything that has been presented to me. I’ve listened to everything you’ve said to me. I don’t feel like I’ve been given the information I need to know in my heart that this is going to be safe for our community.”
Later on Sept. 14, Oklahoma Primary Aluminum released a statement in response to the town’s actions.
We are disappointed by the town council’s decision,” OPA’s statement reads.
Oklahoma Primary Aluminum
“Extending the moratorium and retroactively changing approved zoning and established property rights after millions of dollars have been invested under valid authorizations is not permitted under Oklahoma law or the United States Constitution.
“Additionally, placing a proposed ban on aluminum production on the ballot for a public vote is premature while the courts consider unresolved questions regarding signatures, misleading language and the petition’s legality. Moving forward with a vote before the appeals process undermines basic due process and exposes Inola taxpayers to significant financial and legal risk. We intend to pursue these issues through the courts and continue to move forward with this important project.
“The facility should be evaluated through the established regulatory process, allowing the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to fully review the project and make determinations based on science, evidence and applicable environmental standards.”
Later on Sept. 14, Tulsa Ports also submitted a statement of disappointment in the trustees’ decision:
“The mission of Tulsa Ports is to drive economic growth for Oklahoma by attracting new businesses through our industrial parks and waterway assets. As stewards of land, we have a responsibility to preserve our ability to develop these sites in ways that support new opportunities for future generations. For years, Tulsa Ports has planned and proactively invested in the development of the Tulsa Port of Inola in reliance on existing zoning and land-use designations. Actions that create uncertainty around established development rights can not only hinder our ability to carry out our mission and affect investments and plans already made for the property but will degrade the image of Oklahoma as a State that is open for new investment.
Tulsa Ports has a long record of sustainable industrial development. We believe projects of this scale should be evaluated through the established regulatory processes by the engineers, environmental professionals, and agencies responsible for determining whether they can be developed and operated safely. We respect the perspectives of community members and remain committed to responsible development and protecting the long-term economic opportunities the Port of Inola would create for the community, the Tulsa region, and Oklahoma.
We are disappointed that the Council has chosen to extend the moratorium and prolong uncertainty surrounding development that has advanced in reliance on existing zoning and lawful approvals. Tulsa Ports will continue to protect its property rights, prior investments, and ability to fulfill its public mission while allowing the appropriate regulatory agencies to evaluate the project on its merits.”
Tulsa Ports
