By Devyn Lyon, FOX23.com News Staff
INOLA, Okla. — A citizen-led effort seeking to prohibit primary aluminum smelting within the Town of Inola has cleared a major signature hurdle in court, but a new filing could determine what happens next.
The initiative petition, which was filed by Kerissa Stonebarger in July, seeks an ordinance prohibiting primary aluminum smelting within Inola’s town limits, regardless of zoning district.
It would also prohibit the storage, treatment and disposal of spent potliner, a waste material from the aluminum smelting process.
The petition doesn’t ask voters to directly approve or reject Oklahoma Primary Aluminum’s proposed $4 billion smelter at the Tulsa Port of Inola.
Instead, it seeks to change local law by prohibiting primary aluminum smelting throughout the town.
The Rogers County Election Board verified 201 signatures from registered Inola voters.
The Town initially determined the petition did not have enough signatures, but petitioners challenged that calculation in Rogers County District Court.
The court ultimately determined the initiative received enough signatures and directed the Town to move forward under Oklahoma’s municipal initiative statutes, including presenting the petition to the Inola Board of Trustees.
Under Oklahoma law, when a municipal initiative petition seeks enactment of an ordinance, the petition is presented to the municipal legislative body.
If it is not granted under the process established in state law, it can be submitted to registered voters.
Inola resident Elizabeth Richards told FOX23 the effort is about giving residents a formal voice in the decision.
“This isn’t the people versus the council. This isn’t anything malicious. It’s just people deserve to have their say. Whatever you want to say [and] that your vote counts. This is one of those times where if you really want it to count, then to show up and be there for when it matters.”
Richards said she supports bringing primary aluminum production back to the United States, but believes residents should have a say over whether that type of operation is allowed within Inola.
“Personally, I think we need primary aluminum back onshore. We do. But when it comes down to this competitive edge of who gets this economic growth, this is a much bigger issue.”
The legal fight is not over.
On Sept. 4, Oklahoma Primary Aluminum, Century Aluminum, Tulsa Ports and other proposed intervenors filed an emergency motion asking the court to stay its earlier order until their motions to intervene can be heard.
The filing argues the court has decided the signature-count question, but has not addressed other challenges the proposed intervenors want to raise concerning the initiative’s legal sufficiency.
Those include arguments involving its wording, zoning procedures and constitutionality.
The proposed intervenors argue the process should be paused before Inola’s Board of Trustees acts on the initiative.
According to the filing, attorneys for the Town told the proposed intervenors the Board would take up the measure at its next meeting. The filing says the Board could enact the ordinance or send it to voters.
If sent to voters, the filing says the measure would be placed on the April 2027 ballot.
The motions to intervene are scheduled to be heard Oct. 2 at 1:30 p.m.
FOX23 reached out to Tulsa Ports about its involvement in the court case.
Tulsa Ports provided the following statement:
“Tulsa Ports acquired the property now known as Port of Inola in 2019 with heavy industrial zoning already approved in 2017. Our intervention in this petition process is to preserve our rights as the property owner and continue our mission to drive economic growth for Oklahoma by attracting new businesses through our industrial parks and waterway assets.”
FOX23 also asked Oklahoma Primary Aluminum for its response.
OPA did not directly address the citizen petition, the signature ruling or its request to intervene in its statement.
The company instead pointed to the project’s ongoing environmental and regulatory process.
OPA provided the following statement:
“Our focus at this stage remains on completing the essential technical, environmental and regulatory milestones required for development.
We recently submitted a plan to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality to reduce the potline fluoride emissions intensity limit by 37%, the lowest proposed limit of any primary aluminum plant in the United States and among the lowest in the world. We are also conducting comprehensive air dispersion modeling to ensure the project meets rigorous standards for local air quality and public health, and we look forward to sharing those results in the near future.
Community trust, transparency and responsible development remain central to our approach. We will continue to maintain an open dialogue with the community through public meetings and our online Answers Center, providing regular updates and opportunities for questions as the project moves through the development and regulatory process.”
The immediate question is whether the court will grant the requested stay.
The proposed intervenors argue the Town should not act on the initiative before their intervention requests and legal objections can be heard.
They contend proceeding beforehand could result in the ordinance being enacted or sent toward an election before those challenges are considered.
The filing says a stay would not change the earliest possible election date, which it identifies as April 2027.
It also says the Town would have another opportunity to consider the initiative after the Oct. 2 hearing if the proposed intervenors are unsuccessful.
For petitioners like Richards, the goal remains getting the question before the people who live in Inola.
“I suspect that this is going to be challenged. It’s going to have hurdles. But the goal is to get this to the vote of the people so that they have their say in the matter.”
FOX23 has also reached out to the Town of Inola for its response.
You can view the full petition filed by Stonebarger here.
You can read the Emergency Motion to Stay by Tulsa Ports here.
