What does a proposed Olympic heritage and snow sports museum have in common with a 65-year-old empty fire station? Both are on land given by the U.S. government to the public, and both have been taking over a decade to figure out if proposed projects match the zoning. The former is proposed for the Olympic Valley Park, zoned as forest recreation by the US Forest Service; the latter sits on Commons Beach, which was deeded to the people of Tahoe City in 1872 and is zoned recreation.

The question of whether a museum belongs in a public park and what to do with the old fire station building while maintaining the recreational intent of both properties has vexed Placer County and some residents for over a decade. Both projects, however, may soon be moving forward.

SNOW Museum

The nonprofit SNOW (Sierra Nevada Olympic & Winter Sports) Museum and Community Cultural Center moved one step closer to becoming reality after the Placer County Planning Commission unanimously approved it on Aug. 27.

The idea for the SNOW Museum dates back to 2009. Tahoe is one of the only Olympic host cities in North America that doesn’t have a museum to honor the event, which was held in Olympic Valley in 1960. Lake Placid in New York, Park City, Utah, and Vancouver, British Colombia, all have Olympic museums. Other mountain towns, like Aspen and Vail, have museums that pay tribute to their winter sports legacy.

Currently, the museum exists in a small retail space in the Boatworks Mall in Tahoe City.

After conducting multiple site studies and assembling master plans, in 2015 the SNOW Museum Board of Directors settled on a 2.3-acre site within the 26-acre Olympic Valley Park. Although the board considered the property across the street near 7-Eleven, it found that spot was not ideal due to the existence of a power substation, the industrial nature of the site, and a patchwork of land ownership.

Sitting on public land and at the entrance to Olympic Valley, the board believes the park to be the ideal location.

“Throughout all the site studies, it’s like, where do we put something that needs to be connected to the milestone event — the ’60 Olympics — and that can represent the culture of our area and still represent all the culture in ski areas up and down the Sierra?” said SNOW Board President Bill Clark. “If you had a dream of where you could put something that recognized the Olympics, welcomed people to our area and our culture, and the rest of the ski industry would feel the connection to it, and it’s on public land so it can never really go away … We almost feel like from our perspective, we feel blessed that there’s that opportunity to do that.”

Other advantages of the park location are that it lies between the North Shore and Truckee and along the Highway 89 corridor, giving it high visibility to motorists, and is not on Palisades Tahoe property. It’s important to the board that the museum represent all Sierra ski resorts and doesn’t sit on private land, which could be taken away.

The museum is currently planned to be a two-level building that would occupy 7,250 square feet on land between the upper and lower parking lots above the pickleball courts. It would have public restrooms accessible from outside the museum, replacing the park’s vault toilets, as well as public meeting rooms.

What is driving some opposition to the project’s location in Olympic Valley Park, however, is the question of whether charging admission and having a small gift shop and café as planned violates the deed restriction’s ban on commercial activity.

“What was the intent of the Forest Service even putting on this deed restriction that said no commercial operations? This is where I come down on the other side of the SNOW Museum and Placer County trying to stick it in there is the original intent of what was going on, because I was at those meetings with all the Forest Service people and the Placer County people,” said Olympic Valley resident Ed Heneveld, who helped establish the park in 2004.

Up until this winter, the Forest Service agreed with Heneveld. However, a leadership change in 2025 at the Tahoe National Forest brought a new forest supervisor with a different interpretation.

“So long as the county can implement the proposal in a manner that will not meet the threshold of a ‘private development of a commercial nature,’ then the Forest Service agrees that the museum would not violate the deed restriction,” wrote Forest Supervisor Chris Feutrier in a January 2026 letter to Clark.

Placer County, which has supported the museum with $850,000 in TOT (transit occupancy tax) funds for the environmental impact report, is thus far in favor of the park site for the museum.

“A lot of studies we did way back, long before I was in the supervisor role, indicated that one of the things we needed to broaden and reduce our dependence on weather and seasonality for outdoor recreation, was to have indoor facilities,” said Placer County Supervisor Cindy Gustafson, who represents North Tahoe. “The original tourism master plan indicated that we needed more facilities to broaden that kind of our offerings. The idea that we celebrate the heritage of our Olympics and the development of the ski industry and snow sports in the Sierra made a lot of sense to me.”

The SNOW Museum would be a public-private partnership, with Placer County owning the land. More details of the partnership still need to be worked out, which will happen if the board of supervisors approves it. The item is expected to go the board on Oct. 20 in Tahoe.

A partnership would bring with it financial and public benefits, since nonprofits are allowed to solicit donations.

“We know we need to replace the playground, and we would love to have permanent restrooms,” Gustafson said. “A partnership with a nonprofit helps us secure more funding to do the infrastructure and bring the water and sewer to the site especially so that we can have regular restrooms … The other thing that we as the county insisted on is that there would be a public meeting room or an event room, so people could take shelter there, or gather. It’s a partnership that we think could be very meaningful to the community.”

Gustafson does not think that a museum gift shop or coffee shop qualifies as commercial. Most museums around the world have these amenities, which help to offset the organization’s expenses.

“If you go to the Gatekeepers Museum, they sell trinkets, right? It’s a museum on state park property. It is a historical museum. They have a gift shop,” she said. “Having visited Mount St. Helens, which is a Forest Service-run visitor center, there’s a commercial shop in there … Most people don’t define gift shops in a museum as an unregulated commercial use.”

One option proposed by the USFS is that the county pay the difference between the assessed value and the fair market rate, since the deed restriction blocking commercial usage reduced the value of the land. If the county did, this would remove the deed restriction, and the issue of commercial use would be moot. This is one possibility Heneveld said he can live with. However, the county stated it is not considering this alternative.

“Our interpretation is that this county museum is consistent with county service operations, so we are not exploring a buyout of that restriction at this point,” said Stephanie Holloway, Placer County deputy CEO for Tahoe.

The SNOW Museum estimates the project will cost $20 million. It currently has a $1.4 million endowment designated for construction and has its collection of artifacts in place thanks to the Auburn Ski Club, which donated thousands of pieces dating back to the 1930s. The museum will start fundraising when the project is approved.

The museum is not the only organization eyeing the park for possible development. According to Gustafson, Placer County offered a portion of the park behind the sports field to Creekside Charter School in exchange for maintaining the field and keeping it open for public use. If this were to move forward, public meetings would be held, and it would need board of supervisors’ approval. No official proposal from Creekside has been submitted.

Old Fire Station

A bigger headache for the county has been the former Tahoe City fire station — what to do that meets the recreational intent of the zoning, is open to public use, and is financially viable? The building has been vacant since 2012 when the North Tahoe Fire Protection District moved into a new facility.

In 2018, two groups — Siren Arts and Commonwell — submitted proposals, the first for a multi-use community space and the second for a market hall, but Placer found neither was economically sustainable.

“Moving forward, what we’ve really been focused on is trying to find the right mix of community support and a financially sound partner who has assets to bring forward,” Holloway said.

The nonprofit California Wildfire Institute approached Placer County about the space in 2022, but the organization eventually pulled out of discussions.

Through community surveys and public meetings, the county says it has an idea of what residents want in the space. A 2017 survey revealed that residents were most interested in bringing art complexes, indoor recreation facilities, and food and beverage options to the former firehouse. Meeting rooms and gathering spaces came in fifth.

Further community engagement conducted by the county, including focus groups in 2022, found that there was alignment around three guiding pillars for the future use of the site: (1) science and environmental protection; (2) art and community spaces; and (3) public awareness and stewardship education.

In 2023, after the county held small group conversations on the topic, a staff MOU to the board of supervisors stated: “Uniform support amongst all stakeholders interviewed [stated a preference] for a multi-use facility that would provide science research, science meeting and public education spaces, and flexible arts and community spaces open to the public.”

“What we heard from the community is that this is public land. We, as the county, are stewards of the land,” Holloway said. “What we learned was that the community had a strong interest in still having a community connection. That was first and foremost. Secondly, we heard that activating the space in a science-based, educational component to celebrate being stewards of the lake was important. We took all of that to heart.”

Another science-based nonprofit has been in talks with the county for a few years, according to Gustafson, although the talks are still in the early stages — UC Davis’s Tahoe Environmental Research Center, which has been in Incline Village since 2006.

Gustafson said TERC could be a good match if the design of a new building includes public meeting and event space as well as a visitor center. The nonprofit’s offices, however, may need to be across the street in the Bechdolt building, which the county owns, to satisfy the recreational zoning of Commons Beach.

“I’ve always believed in the idea of a more elaborate visitor center for our community to educate the public on taking care of this lake,” she said. “I think it’s amazing to me that millions of visitors come into Tahoe City and they can’t really learn about the lake other than on interpretive signs outdoors.”

Gustafson points to the Mono Basin Scenic Area Visitor Center, run by the USFS; Washington State Parks’ Mount St. Helen’s Visitor Center, which has a theater that plays educational movies; or the nonprofit Monterey Bay Aquarium, which hosts dinners and after-hour events, as examples of what the TERC facility could become that would benefit the community.

“You can have movies. You can have shared-use facilities where people learn about the history of the lake, the environmental research going on, or exhibits,” she added. “Tahoe City could have a landmark facility.”

TERC said it could not provide details of talks with the county due to the preliminary nature of the negotiations.

“I can confirm that we have been in discussion with the county and we are looking into opportunities to expand our very successful education program into Tahoe City, but we can’t comment beyond that at this time,” said Cara Hollis, TERC communications and marketing specialist.

The key to whatever goes into the fire station is “perpetual funding,” per Gustafson, which likely means a public-private partnership similar to the SNOW Museum.

“Whether that’s TOT or the county or whether it’s TERC or other groups where there could be an event space … we need partnerships coming together because not one group on its own can fund the cost of such a thing,” she said.

If TERC were to take over the building, it would need board of supervisors’ approval.

Robb Olson, who was part of the Siren Arts team, said while he considers TERC a good fit for the former fire station, he thinks that the space should also encompass the arts, which is exactly what the Siren Arts project was trying to do — provide a space for both the arts and sciences and other community interests.

“The thing that Placer County hasn’t been able to connect with is arts,” he said. “We don’t really have a strong advocate for the arts. We need to be more well-rounded … The sun goes down, what do you do? That was what Siren Arts was about.”

Olson is critical of the county for not allowing Siren Arts to prove their project could work financially.

“The county just wanted someone to be like, ‘Hey, I’ve got $20 million. I’m going to make this project happen,’” Olson said. “We just need to try to lift things up and we can’t look to the county to subsidize arts and culture. They’re not there. I think arts and culture is hard for people to understand and to see the value.”

While the Siren Arts fire house project has been put to bed, Olson is trying to implement many of its goals with his new project — a total remodel of the Trading House buildings (across from the old Safeway in Tahoe City), which he and his wife purchased last fall.

“The Siren Arts spirit is very much alive. It’s just in a different form and it’s going through different channels to get there — it’s going through the private sector versus public,” he said.