Land Use & Environment Committee Special Meeting – Hearing Examiner Candidate Interviews – February 18, 2026

This was a special meeting of the Olympia Land Use & Environment Committee (LUEC) to interview two candidates for the position of city hearing examiner. The hearing examiner conducts quasi-judicial land use hearings and appeals under Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 18.82. The committee interviewed incumbent Mark Scheibmeir and Phil Olbrechts, the only two applicants. The LUEC will deliberate at a later regular meeting and make a recommendation to the full City Council, which will vote on a contract (and a separate pro tem contract) expected in March 2026.

Overview of Selection Process

Community Planning & Economic Development Director Tim Smith explained the process: the city issued a Request for Qualifications, screened responses, and the LUEC conducted interviews using a set of eight questions. The interviews were approximately 45 minutes each. Staff noted that the position was advertised through the Seattle Business Journal and the Washington State Association of Hearing Examiners, resulting in two applicants – a reflection of limited availability of hearing examiners.

Candidate Interview: Mark Scheibmeir

Experience and Background

• Incumbent hearing examiner for Olympia since 2013, with 45 years of law practice and 30 years as a hearing examiner for roughly 25 jurisdictions (three counties and ~20 cities), including Tumwater, Lakewood, Gay Harbor, Issaquah, Yelm, and others. Retired from private practice at the end of 2025 but continued with long-time clients.

Most Difficult Decisions

• Two cases: (1) Denying shoreline permits for a coal port in Longview (a billion‑dollar project, upheld by the Court of Appeals). (2) The “mistake on the lake” office building on Olympia’s isthmus, which resulted in a hearing from 6 PM to 2 AM with disruptive public testimony. Both decisions survived court review.

Public Hearing Principles

• Emphasizes neutrality: “I check my beliefs at the door” and applies each jurisdiction’s policies. Allows 10 minutes per public speaker (vs. typical 3 minutes) to reduce anxiety. In pre‑COVID in‑person hearings, he builds one‑on‑one rapport with speakers. He is exploring hybrid formats post‑pandemic.

Responding to Community Opposition

• Explains that he lacks equitable powers; he must follow the code. If a project meets code, he cannot deny it based on popularity. He acknowledges Olympia’s active neighborhood associations but clarifies he is not a policy maker.

Conflicts of Interest

• Has been challenged on appearance of fairness due to his former law firm’s association with the Lewis County Chamber of Commerce. He maintains no personal memberships in organizations that could imply bias. He proposed a policy for pre‑hearing disclosure of potential conflicts, though it hasn’t yet been used in Olympia.

Expectations of City Staff

• Called Olympia staff “the finest” and encourages them to maintain professional distance (no post‑hearing pleasantries) to avoid appearance of closeness. Uses Olympia staff reports as templates for other jurisdictions.

Mentorship

• Noted the challenge of finding new hearing examiners because the profession lacks a pipeline. The two typical sources are former city attorneys and associates in land use firms, but pay is often lower. He plans to eventually mentor a successor in his office. He is open to a pro tem arrangement to help train someone.

Interest in Pro Tem Role

• Yes, if not selected as primary examiner, he would serve as pro tem.

Candidate Interview: Phil Olbrechts

Experience and Background

• Hearing examiner for about 32 communities since 1989. Most notably Mason County Hearing Examiner since 1995. Former partner at Ogden Murphy Wallace (15‑city practice). Also teaches a webinar for the Municipal Research Services Center and previously taught at the University of Washington.

Most Difficult Decision

• A current ongoing case where a citizens group claims a planner prepared an environmental checklist after the threshold determination. Testimony from the planner suggests sincerity, but metadata appears contradictory. He is considering suggesting the parties hire a forensic computer expert.

Public Hearing Principles

• Aims to make hearings accessible to the public, explaining technical terms like “SEPA” and summarizing how codes address community concerns. He often writes decisions with an overview explaining how state and local regulations already mitigate impacts. He sees his role as a translator of law.

Responding to Community Opposition

• Explains that if a project meets code, it is an entitlement; denial would be reversed in court and could cost taxpayers. He notes that the place for policy change is with the City Council, not the hearing examiner.

Conflicts of Interest

• Stresses the importance of appearance of fairness. Has only recused himself once (due to prior litigation with an expert witness). He pushes back on claims that being paid by the city creates a conflict, citing the doctrine of necessity and his incentive to make decisions that are upheld in court.

Expectations of City Staff

• Wants staff reports that identify code criteria and explain how the application meets them. This aids the public understanding and provides a clear basis for his decisions, which also aids appellate review.

Mentorship

• Focuses on mentoring planning professionals who later become hearing examiners, as they bring wisdom from long careers. He occasionally hires University of Washington students and plans to transition to a younger lawyer in about 10 years.

Interest in Pro Tem Role

• Yes, he is willing to serve as pro tem.

Next Steps

The committee will discuss the interviews at a regular LUEC meeting and vote on a preferred candidate. That recommendation will go to the full City Council for contract approval, anticipated in March 2026.