Antioch board authorizes privately funded feasibility study of alternate veterans memorial site, tables permit vote to July

The Antioch Village Board voted June 9 to authorize a privately funded feasibility study into an alternate location for the Antioch Veterans Memorial and set a July deadline for donors to commit, while deferring a decision on permits for the board’s previously approved site.

Mayor Andrew, who introduced the motion with a caveat that any feasibility costs be covered by outside donations, said the village would not use AVM committee or village funds for the work. “I would request that we modify this moving forward … that within a certain finite period of time, we get those costs covered,” he said, urging donors to commit by the board’s second July meeting.

Why it matters: The memorial dispute has split veterans’ groups, donors and trustees after years of planning. Supporters of relocation say the village-owned ‘tank’ site at Orchard/Todd could offer greater visibility; others say revisiting an approved location undermines years of work and donor commitments.

What the board approved and the timeline: The board approved a motion to evaluate and assess alternative sites with the condition that any study cost not exceed $30,000 and that the funds or in-kind contributions be pledged by the board’s July date. Staff estimated that, if funded, engineering and feasibility work would take roughly two to three months to complete. The motion passed on roll call, four in favor and two opposed.

Public reaction and trustee views: A resident who spoke during public comment urged the board to return the memorial to Memorial Park, saying, “Everybody is in favor of putting this memorial back to Memorial Park.” Trustee Boozer, who urged the board to honor prior commitments and to move ahead, warned that repeated delays could erode public trust: “If decisions can be revisited years after years of planning … then what confidence should residents have in future projects?”

Other trustees framed the choice differently. Trustee Peters said placing a new memorial atop an existing monument would “ruin the integrity” of Memorial Park and supported engineering study of the tank site. Several trustees emphasized the need for a short timetable so AVM fundraising would not stall.

Permits and next steps: Staff told the board that village permits for the original site are prepared and could be issued; however, item 10 (action on those permits) was tabled to the board’s second July meeting so trustees can review the feasibility outcome or the status of pledged funds. The motion to table that item passed with one abstention.

What the feasibility study will examine: Staff said the study would include preliminary design options, soil borings, ground-penetrating radar to check for buried foundations and an estimate of construction costs for potential layouts at the tank-area parcel. If the study shows the site is feasible and donors have covered testing costs, the board will receive a report with cost estimates and location options and may then act on permits or select an alternative.

Bottom line: The board chose to advance engineering due diligence on a potential alternative while protecting village and AVM committee funds by requiring outside financing for the work. Trustees remain divided over whether revisiting the location is the right path, and a July meeting will be a decisive next step.