Nick Gessell
Name: Nick Gessell
Email: [email protected]
Campaign Phone: 651-356-8989
Campaign Website: https://nickgessell.wixsite.com/votegessell
Twitter handle: NA
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/GessellForMayor
Candidate Bio
My wife, Cara, and I are raising our three daughters in Farmington. This is our home, and the decisions being made about its future are personal to me.
Professionally, I am a Senior Director with experience in growth strategy, business finance, process improvement, and organizational decision-making. My work requires me to look beyond the immediate opportunity, understand the financial and operational impact, and bring people together around a workable plan.
I have stayed involved in Farmington by attending City Council meetings, asking questions, sharing ideas, coaching youth, supporting local fundraising efforts, and encouraging others to get involved. I also helped advocate for changes to Farmington’s beekeeping ordinance.
I am running because Farmington needs a clearer direction for its future. I want to use my experience to help our city grow responsibly, protect taxpayers, communicate openly, and make sure residents have a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect them.
Moving Farmington forward, with residents leading the way.
What style of leadership would you bring to this position?
I would bring a leadership style that is prepared, approachable, and direct. I believe in listening first, doing the homework, asking difficult questions, and explaining how I reached a decision.
Listening does not mean avoiding tough choices or trying to make everyone happy. It means making sure people are heard and that different viewpoints are honestly considered before a decision is made. When I disagree with someone, I can still respect their concerns and have a productive conversation.
I also understand that the mayor is one member of the City Council. Moving an idea forward requires collaboration, trust, and the ability to build support. I would work closely with Council members and city staff while remaining willing to challenge assumptions when something does not appear to serve residents well.
Residents should never have to guess where I stand or why I voted a certain way. I will be honest about what I know, what I do not know, and what still needs to be answered.
What are your top three priorities if elected, and how might they be affected by growing uncertainty around state and federal funding?
My first priority is making growth work for the people who already call Farmington home. That includes carefully evaluating the Technology Park, planning infrastructure before development occurs, protecting neighborhoods and natural resources, and making sure new growth provides enough benefit to justify its cost.
My second priority is strengthening our local business community. Farmington needs more places to shop, eat, receive services, and work. I want the city to actively pursue businesses that fit our community while helping existing businesses remain and expand.
My third priority is protecting taxpayers while keeping public safety, roads, utilities, parks, and other core services dependable.
Uncertainty in state and federal funding makes long-term planning even more important. I would not build ongoing city expenses around grants or outside funding that may disappear. Those dollars should be used carefully for one-time projects or investments that reduce future costs. We also need realistic forecasts, healthy reserves, phased projects, and clear priorities so an unexpected funding change does not force the city into a crisis.
What is the biggest challenge facing Farmington right now, and where do you see the greatest opportunity?
Farmington’s biggest challenge is managing growth without losing control of the long-term consequences.
Decisions being made now will affect our water supply, roads, emergency services, neighborhoods, natural resources, and tax base for decades. The Technology Park is the clearest example. It may present an opportunity, but a project of that size cannot be judged by projected revenue alone. Residents deserve a full understanding of its costs, demands, risks, and impact on nearby homes.
Our greatest opportunity is to become more intentional about the kind of growth we pursue. Farmington has a growing population, available land, and residents who want more choices close to home. We should use those strengths to attract businesses and services that create jobs, broaden our commercial tax base, and add something residents can actually use.
Growth is coming. The opportunity is to stop simply reacting to proposals and start actively shaping what Farmington becomes.
How would you characterize the business climate in Farmington, and what role should city government play in partnering with the business community to attract jobs, develop the workforce, and address shared challenges?
Farmington has real potential, but we have not yet turned that potential into the range of businesses, services, and jobs residents want. Too much household spending leaves the city because people have limited choices here.
City government cannot order a grocery store, restaurant, or employer to come to Farmington. It can make Farmington prepared, competitive, and easier to invest in.
I would support a targeted business-growth plan using resident input and market data to identify what Farmington can realistically support. The city should maintain an inventory of development-ready commercial sites and directly market those opportunities to business owners, developers, and commercial brokers.
We also need regular conversations with businesses already here. City leaders should understand what is working, what creates unnecessary difficulty, and what would help local employers grow. Workforce needs should be addressed through partnerships with employers, educational institutions, Dakota County, and regional organizations.
When public assistance is considered, it should address a real financing need, produce a measurable public benefit, and protect taxpayers if promised results are not delivered.
What do you view as the most pressing public safety challenges in your community, and how would you address them?
I do not think it serves Farmington to exaggerate crime or create fear for political purposes. Our most pressing public safety challenge is making sure police, fire, emergency response, and road safety keep pace as the city grows.
New neighborhoods and large developments can increase call volumes, traffic, infrastructure demands, and the complexity of emergencies. Those effects need to be evaluated before projects are approved. When development creates a need for additional equipment, infrastructure, or staffing, those costs should be understood and assigned fairly.
I would prioritize adequate staffing, updated equipment, ongoing training, and facilities that allow our public safety departments to respond effectively. I would also support stronger coordination between police, fire, public works, Dakota County, and neighboring communities.
Traffic safety deserves particular attention. The city should use crash data, resident reports, and professional traffic studies to identify dangerous intersections, speeding concerns, poor visibility, and unsafe crossings.
What ideas do you have to address housing shortages and affordability, and how do you view the role of rent control policies in that process?
I do not believe a lack of housing diversity is Farmington’s primary housing issue. The more immediate concern is that rising property taxes are making it harder for residents to afford the homes they already own. People who planned to remain in their homes for the rest of their lives should not feel as though they are being taxed out of them.
Affordability is also about the value residents receive in return. Farmington families are paying more, yet we still lack amenities such as a community center or public pool, and residents continue to raise concerns about limited programs and services. The city does not control every part of the property tax bill, including school district taxes, but it must take responsibility for its portion and clearly show residents where their money is going.
I do not support rent control as the solution. It does not address property taxes, construction costs, or the overall cost of maintaining housing, and it can discourage future rental investment. My focus would be controlling the city’s tax burden, spending responsibly, growing the commercial tax base, and ensuring residents receive real value from the taxes they pay.
How would you improve transportation infrastructure and safety for drivers, transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians in your community?
Transportation planning needs to begin before development, not after congestion and safety problems have already appeared.
For drivers, I would focus on maintaining existing streets, addressing high-risk intersections, and requiring new development to account for the traffic it creates. Repairs should be prioritized using pavement condition, safety data, traffic volume, and long-term cost rather than political pressure.
For pedestrians and cyclists, we should identify missing sidewalk and trail connections, improve crossings, address accessibility barriers, and make it safer to reach neighborhoods, parks, businesses, and community facilities without a car.
Farmington also needs to advocate for better transit connections. The city does not control every road or transit decision, so the mayor and Council must maintain strong working relationships with Dakota County, MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council, and transit providers. Waiting for another agency to notice our needs is not enough.
I would push for a clear transportation plan that identifies priorities, responsible agencies, likely costs, and funding opportunities so projects do not remain on a wish list indefinitely.
Residential property owners across the region are feeling significant strain from rising property tax bills. How would you approach balancing fiscal responsibility with the demand for services when setting the city levy?
Farmington does not control every part of a property owner’s tax bill, but city leaders are responsible for managing the city’s share.
I would begin with the services residents rely on most, including police, fire, streets, utilities, parks, and essential city operations. From there, every proposed expense should be evaluated based on need, results, full long-term cost, and whether a less expensive approach is available.
Holding the levy flat is not automatically responsible if it means allowing roads or equipment to deteriorate until repairs become more expensive. At the same time, raising the levy should never be treated as the easy answer. Residents deserve to see what has changed, why more money is needed, and what service or result they will receive.
I would avoid using temporary funding for permanent expenses, require realistic multiyear forecasts, and make sure new development pays its fair share of the demands it creates. Expanding the commercial tax base can reduce future pressure on homeowners, but only when the growth produces more value than it costs the city.
What are the two or three issues where you believe city government is best positioned to lead — and why the city rather than the state or county?
First, the city should lead on land use and economic development. Farmington controls local zoning, development review, infrastructure planning, and many of the relationships that determine whether a business can successfully locate or expand here. State and county programs can help, but they cannot decide what kind of community Farmington wants to become.
Second, the city should lead on core services and local infrastructure. Residents experience city government most directly through police, fire, streets, water, sewer, parks, and development decisions. These services require local knowledge, clear priorities, and direct accountability.
Third, the city should lead on transparency and public involvement. No state or county agency can replace a strong relationship between Farmington residents and their local government. City leaders are close enough to explain decisions, hear concerns early, and create meaningful opportunities for residents to influence the outcome.
Partnerships are important, but partnership should not become an excuse to wait for someone else to lead.
What does real taxpayer transparency look like to you, and what specific steps would you take to achieve it — both in terms of financial reporting and public engagement?
Real transparency means residents receive useful information before a decision is made, while there is still time for their input to matter. For major proposals, I would push for a plain-language summary explaining what is being considered, how residents are expected to benefit, the complete cost, the funding source, future obligations, known risks, and any unanswered questions. Development incentives should include a written explanation of the public return, measurable requirements, and protections for taxpayers if those requirements are not met.
The city budget should be presented in a format residents can follow. I would support a public financial dashboard showing budget-to-actual spending, levy changes, debt, major capital projects, and how city tax dollars are being used. Residents should also be able to see how a proposal affects an average property owner without searching through hundreds of pages.
Public engagement should include neighborhood conversations, business roundtables, question-and-answer sessions, and online ways to participate. Not everyone can attend a Council meeting.
Some information is legally protected, but the city should never use confidentiality simply to avoid a difficult public conversation.
Email: [email protected]
Campaign Phone: 651-356-8989
Campaign Website: https://nickgessell.wixsite.com/votegessell
Twitter handle: NA
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/GessellForMayor
Candidate Bio
My wife, Cara, and I are raising our three daughters in Farmington. This is our home, and the decisions being made about its future are personal to me.
Professionally, I am a Senior Director with experience in growth strategy, business finance, process improvement, and organizational decision-making. My work requires me to look beyond the immediate opportunity, understand the financial and operational impact, and bring people together around a workable plan.
I have stayed involved in Farmington by attending City Council meetings, asking questions, sharing ideas, coaching youth, supporting local fundraising efforts, and encouraging others to get involved. I also helped advocate for changes to Farmington’s beekeeping ordinance.
I am running because Farmington needs a clearer direction for its future. I want to use my experience to help our city grow responsibly, protect taxpayers, communicate openly, and make sure residents have a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect them.
Moving Farmington forward, with residents leading the way.
What style of leadership would you bring to this position?
I would bring a leadership style that is prepared, approachable, and direct. I believe in listening first, doing the homework, asking difficult questions, and explaining how I reached a decision.
Listening does not mean avoiding tough choices or trying to make everyone happy. It means making sure people are heard and that different viewpoints are honestly considered before a decision is made. When I disagree with someone, I can still respect their concerns and have a productive conversation.
I also understand that the mayor is one member of the City Council. Moving an idea forward requires collaboration, trust, and the ability to build support. I would work closely with Council members and city staff while remaining willing to challenge assumptions when something does not appear to serve residents well.
Residents should never have to guess where I stand or why I voted a certain way. I will be honest about what I know, what I do not know, and what still needs to be answered.
What are your top three priorities if elected, and how might they be affected by growing uncertainty around state and federal funding?
My first priority is making growth work for the people who already call Farmington home. That includes carefully evaluating the Technology Park, planning infrastructure before development occurs, protecting neighborhoods and natural resources, and making sure new growth provides enough benefit to justify its cost.
My second priority is strengthening our local business community. Farmington needs more places to shop, eat, receive services, and work. I want the city to actively pursue businesses that fit our community while helping existing businesses remain and expand.
My third priority is protecting taxpayers while keeping public safety, roads, utilities, parks, and other core services dependable.
Uncertainty in state and federal funding makes long-term planning even more important. I would not build ongoing city expenses around grants or outside funding that may disappear. Those dollars should be used carefully for one-time projects or investments that reduce future costs. We also need realistic forecasts, healthy reserves, phased projects, and clear priorities so an unexpected funding change does not force the city into a crisis.
What is the biggest challenge facing Farmington right now, and where do you see the greatest opportunity?
Farmington’s biggest challenge is managing growth without losing control of the long-term consequences.
Decisions being made now will affect our water supply, roads, emergency services, neighborhoods, natural resources, and tax base for decades. The Technology Park is the clearest example. It may present an opportunity, but a project of that size cannot be judged by projected revenue alone. Residents deserve a full understanding of its costs, demands, risks, and impact on nearby homes.
Our greatest opportunity is to become more intentional about the kind of growth we pursue. Farmington has a growing population, available land, and residents who want more choices close to home. We should use those strengths to attract businesses and services that create jobs, broaden our commercial tax base, and add something residents can actually use.
Growth is coming. The opportunity is to stop simply reacting to proposals and start actively shaping what Farmington becomes.
How would you characterize the business climate in Farmington, and what role should city government play in partnering with the business community to attract jobs, develop the workforce, and address shared challenges?
Farmington has real potential, but we have not yet turned that potential into the range of businesses, services, and jobs residents want. Too much household spending leaves the city because people have limited choices here.
City government cannot order a grocery store, restaurant, or employer to come to Farmington. It can make Farmington prepared, competitive, and easier to invest in.
I would support a targeted business-growth plan using resident input and market data to identify what Farmington can realistically support. The city should maintain an inventory of development-ready commercial sites and directly market those opportunities to business owners, developers, and commercial brokers.
We also need regular conversations with businesses already here. City leaders should understand what is working, what creates unnecessary difficulty, and what would help local employers grow. Workforce needs should be addressed through partnerships with employers, educational institutions, Dakota County, and regional organizations.
When public assistance is considered, it should address a real financing need, produce a measurable public benefit, and protect taxpayers if promised results are not delivered.
What do you view as the most pressing public safety challenges in your community, and how would you address them?
I do not think it serves Farmington to exaggerate crime or create fear for political purposes. Our most pressing public safety challenge is making sure police, fire, emergency response, and road safety keep pace as the city grows.
New neighborhoods and large developments can increase call volumes, traffic, infrastructure demands, and the complexity of emergencies. Those effects need to be evaluated before projects are approved. When development creates a need for additional equipment, infrastructure, or staffing, those costs should be understood and assigned fairly.
I would prioritize adequate staffing, updated equipment, ongoing training, and facilities that allow our public safety departments to respond effectively. I would also support stronger coordination between police, fire, public works, Dakota County, and neighboring communities.
Traffic safety deserves particular attention. The city should use crash data, resident reports, and professional traffic studies to identify dangerous intersections, speeding concerns, poor visibility, and unsafe crossings.
What ideas do you have to address housing shortages and affordability, and how do you view the role of rent control policies in that process?
I do not believe a lack of housing diversity is Farmington’s primary housing issue. The more immediate concern is that rising property taxes are making it harder for residents to afford the homes they already own. People who planned to remain in their homes for the rest of their lives should not feel as though they are being taxed out of them.
Affordability is also about the value residents receive in return. Farmington families are paying more, yet we still lack amenities such as a community center or public pool, and residents continue to raise concerns about limited programs and services. The city does not control every part of the property tax bill, including school district taxes, but it must take responsibility for its portion and clearly show residents where their money is going.
I do not support rent control as the solution. It does not address property taxes, construction costs, or the overall cost of maintaining housing, and it can discourage future rental investment. My focus would be controlling the city’s tax burden, spending responsibly, growing the commercial tax base, and ensuring residents receive real value from the taxes they pay.
How would you improve transportation infrastructure and safety for drivers, transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians in your community?
Transportation planning needs to begin before development, not after congestion and safety problems have already appeared.
For drivers, I would focus on maintaining existing streets, addressing high-risk intersections, and requiring new development to account for the traffic it creates. Repairs should be prioritized using pavement condition, safety data, traffic volume, and long-term cost rather than political pressure.
For pedestrians and cyclists, we should identify missing sidewalk and trail connections, improve crossings, address accessibility barriers, and make it safer to reach neighborhoods, parks, businesses, and community facilities without a car.
Farmington also needs to advocate for better transit connections. The city does not control every road or transit decision, so the mayor and Council must maintain strong working relationships with Dakota County, MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council, and transit providers. Waiting for another agency to notice our needs is not enough.
I would push for a clear transportation plan that identifies priorities, responsible agencies, likely costs, and funding opportunities so projects do not remain on a wish list indefinitely.
Residential property owners across the region are feeling significant strain from rising property tax bills. How would you approach balancing fiscal responsibility with the demand for services when setting the city levy?
Farmington does not control every part of a property owner’s tax bill, but city leaders are responsible for managing the city’s share.
I would begin with the services residents rely on most, including police, fire, streets, utilities, parks, and essential city operations. From there, every proposed expense should be evaluated based on need, results, full long-term cost, and whether a less expensive approach is available.
Holding the levy flat is not automatically responsible if it means allowing roads or equipment to deteriorate until repairs become more expensive. At the same time, raising the levy should never be treated as the easy answer. Residents deserve to see what has changed, why more money is needed, and what service or result they will receive.
I would avoid using temporary funding for permanent expenses, require realistic multiyear forecasts, and make sure new development pays its fair share of the demands it creates. Expanding the commercial tax base can reduce future pressure on homeowners, but only when the growth produces more value than it costs the city.
What are the two or three issues where you believe city government is best positioned to lead — and why the city rather than the state or county?
First, the city should lead on land use and economic development. Farmington controls local zoning, development review, infrastructure planning, and many of the relationships that determine whether a business can successfully locate or expand here. State and county programs can help, but they cannot decide what kind of community Farmington wants to become.
Second, the city should lead on core services and local infrastructure. Residents experience city government most directly through police, fire, streets, water, sewer, parks, and development decisions. These services require local knowledge, clear priorities, and direct accountability.
Third, the city should lead on transparency and public involvement. No state or county agency can replace a strong relationship between Farmington residents and their local government. City leaders are close enough to explain decisions, hear concerns early, and create meaningful opportunities for residents to influence the outcome.
Partnerships are important, but partnership should not become an excuse to wait for someone else to lead.
What does real taxpayer transparency look like to you, and what specific steps would you take to achieve it — both in terms of financial reporting and public engagement?
Real transparency means residents receive useful information before a decision is made, while there is still time for their input to matter. For major proposals, I would push for a plain-language summary explaining what is being considered, how residents are expected to benefit, the complete cost, the funding source, future obligations, known risks, and any unanswered questions. Development incentives should include a written explanation of the public return, measurable requirements, and protections for taxpayers if those requirements are not met.
The city budget should be presented in a format residents can follow. I would support a public financial dashboard showing budget-to-actual spending, levy changes, debt, major capital projects, and how city tax dollars are being used. Residents should also be able to see how a proposal affects an average property owner without searching through hundreds of pages.
Public engagement should include neighborhood conversations, business roundtables, question-and-answer sessions, and online ways to participate. Not everyone can attend a Council meeting.
Some information is legally protected, but the city should never use confidentiality simply to avoid a difficult public conversation.