Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 911 Memorial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town board weighs replacing deteriorating Greenburgh 9/11 memorial wall
Summary
After a staff assessment found severe tile and structural damage, Greenburgh board members agreed to explore smaller, more durable memorial options, involve firefighters and the Rotary Club, and plan stakeholders' meetings before deciding whether to remove the existing wall or relocate artifacts.
The Greenburgh Town Board discussed the deteriorating 9/11 memorial wall during its Nov. 26 work session and signaled support for pursuing alternatives rather than spending major funds to repair the existing structure. Staff presented a 17‑page assessment documenting adhesive failures, cracked tile backings and internal moisture damage, and said the wall "is probably not worth repairing again."
Why it matters: Board members said the current wall has become an eyesore and may not survive another repair; they emphasized honoring victims while choosing a memorial design that will be durable, accessible and sustainable. The discussion focused on how to preserve artifacts, where to relocate memorial elements and how to secure stakeholder buy‑in before removal.
Staff member (speaker 6), who led the presentation, summarized the technical findings and urged caution about attempting to salvage tiles: "If you read over this 17‑page report, you're gonna see that this wall is probably not worth repairing again," he said, and noted that adhesives and epoxies on the tile backs are likely to cause tiles to fracture during removal. When asked whether tiles could be mounted on intermediary backings or framed, staff answered that cleaning the back surface is required to remount tiles and that the handling itself would probably break most pieces.
Board members offered alternatives and asked for a measured process. One member urged preserving the World Trade Center artifact the town holds and checking whether it is on the artifact registry; another suggested a smaller site with benches and interpretive panels rather than a large masonry wall. The chair noted options for relocating memorial elements to the Gerard Burns Center, the Multipurpose/Burn Center, the library, Veteran Park or nearer the flagpole in Presser Park.
Several members recommended convening a stakeholders' meeting—firefighters who helped with the original memorial, the Rotary Club that funded the wall and local arts or preservation consultants—before any demolition. DPW staff indicated the town could perform removal in‑house when the board authorized the work, and staff said stored tiles remain in crates from earlier repairs.
The board did not adopt a formal resolution at the meeting but directed staff to: post the assessment and photos online for public review, confirm artifact registry status, reach out to the Rotary Club and firefighters, and plan a convening to develop design options and a timeline. The board also discussed options for conserving plaques and relocating them into indoor archival space so the public can still visit memorial materials.
What’s next: Staff will return with follow‑up from the artifact‑registry check, a proposed stakeholder meeting, and any engineering clarifications about the wall’s composition and the feasibility/cost of salvage versus replacement.
