Earlier this summer, Mark Palasciano, former T-Mobile employee, social media activist and self-described “whistleblower” took aim at the salary of Wes Pierson, City Manager for the City of Frisco.  Why?  At the time the new Mayor and City Council were considering raising property taxes.  Palasciano questioned the tax increase and what justification the city could have for the 65% salary increase City Manager Wes Pierson has received since starting office in 2022.  Palasciano claimed that when Wes Pierson was hired in 2022 at starting salary of $285,000.  He said after several increases his 2026 salary was at $469,000. 

Frisco Chronicles wanted to verify these claims, so we filed a public information request with the city.   We requested pay increases, annual reviews/evaluations and employee contracts.  Is Pierson the ½ million dollar man like Palasciano claimed? Frisco Chronicles confirmed the following pay increases:

8/2/2022 – New Hire – Annual Salary $285,000.04

12/19/22 – Annual Merit Increase – Salary $296,400.00

• Notes a 10,000 bonus, 11,400 merit and 6,000 review.

12/18/23 – Annual Merit Increase – Salary $308,256.00

12/16/2024 – Annual Merit Increase – Salary $386,400.04

• Notes a 20,000 performance bonus, $30,826 lump sum

12/29/25 – Annual Merit Increase – Salary $401,856.00

• Notes a 4% Merit Increase

A review of some websites like GovSalaries.com shows Pierson makes $469,030 which is 70% higher than the average salary for this position.  OpenGovePay.com reports Wes Pierson also earned $469,030 in 2025 and they obtained that from public payroll data from the City of Frisco.  The website also states, “From 2024 to 2025, Wesley Pierson’s salary increased by 17% ($67,998). Over the full recorded period from 2022 to 2025, the salary increased by approximately 212% ($318,634), representing an average annual growth of 46.10%.

The information provided raised questions like, what are the annual salaries of other city managers in Texas cities?   As of 2026, Frisco, Texas has an estimated population of about 249,511 according to the city’s official demographic report, with other sources citing figures in the mid‑245,000s.

Pierson’s Priorities

There is another question the Council needs to answer: If the City Council is responsible for conducting the city manager’s annual performance reviews and determining his compensation, how can taxpayers be assured that the city manager’s priorities are always aligned with the public interest rather than the interests of the elected officials who control his pay? The public deserves to know what criteria are used in those reviews, whether measurable performance standards exist, and whether the results are made available to residents. When the same officials who depend on the city manager to carry out their priorities also determine their raises, it is fair to ask what safeguards exist to ensure independent judgment and accountability. And it raises an uncomfortable question: Has the compensation structure created an incentive for the city manager to keep Council members happy rather than push back when their decisions may not serve taxpayers? Pierson’s willingness to accommodate Council priorities may have perfectly legitimate explanations, but residents should not have to guess whether financial incentives play a role. If his compensation depends, in part, on evaluations by the very people whose wishes he is expected to implement, the public deserves transparency about how that arrangement protects the interests of the people footing the bill.

When Taxpayers Get the Bill, Who Holds City Hall Accountable?

When residents face higher taxes, they are expected to adjust their household budgets. When city expenses rise, taxpayers are told the money is necessary to maintain services and meet the demands of growth. Frisco residents are being asked to shoulder the cost of running a growing city. Property taxes, rising expenses, and the cost of public services are real concerns for homeowners trying to keep up. While the City Council may not have raised taxes this year, residents will see the increase somewhere and you can bet that is your public utility bill. 

Yet one question deserves a direct answer from City Hall: How can the City Council justify asking taxpayers for more money while the city manager’s compensation has reportedly increased by 65% in just four years?

This is not about attacking one employee. It is about examining the decisions of the elected officials who approve the contracts, authorizing the spending, and ultimately answer to the people paying the bills. Wes Pierson’s compensation deserves scrutiny, because public money demands public accountability. Austin and Dallas operate much larger cities, with substantially larger populations and complex municipal responsibilities.

A potential 65% increase over four years is not a minor adjustment. The public deserves a transparent explanation of how it was calculated, what drove the increases, and how the Council can justify their decision. Frisco has grown into a major city. Growth brings legitimate demands on city management, but it also brings greater responsibility to spend public money carefully. The Council cannot reasonably demand that residents accept higher costs without being prepared to explain its own spending decisions.

So here are the questions Frisco taxpayers deserve answered: What benefits and additional compensation are included? How does his total package compare with those of managers in similarly sized Texas cities?  Why should residents be expected to accept higher tax burdens without a clear accounting of executive compensation? What performance benchmarks justified Pierson’s pay increases? Were they tied to measurable improvements in city services, budget management, economic development, or taxpayer value? Did the Council conduct independent compensation comparisons with similarly sized Texas cities? More importantly, who is holding the Council accountable for the decisions it makes with other people’s money?

Transparency is not a favor City Hall grants residents. It is a basic obligation of public service.  The Council controls the contracts. The Council approves the compensation. And the Council must answer for the choices it makes.  Frisco taxpayers should not have to wonder whether fiscal restraint applies to everyone except the people running City Hall.

Disclaimer This article is written as opinion, commentary, and personal interpretation based on publicly available records, meeting observations, agenda materials, and information heard from community sources. Any statements involving motives, intent, conflicts of interest, contracts, relationships, or behind-the-scenes activity should be understood as alleged, suspected, or opinion unless directly supported by cited public records. Readers are encouraged to review any linked materials, attend public meetings, request records, and form their own conclusions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a final statement of fact about any person’s legal conduct, criminal behavior, or ethical violations.