Johns Creek City Council and Post 4

Friends,
Adam Thomas seems to find it necessary to suggest things about Chris Coughlin that simply do not hold up under scrutiny.  Even though the “tax promise” mentioned was made during a campaign that was NOT for the seat Chris currently holds, he still has not broken that tax promise.

The above states that Chris Coughlin pushed for a millage rate of 4.3. That was lower than the millage rate in the motion that was being debated. That would have been a tax cut.


How often does one see a incumbent chastised for offering an amendment to lower tax rates and then have that used against him?  This could be a first.  But it gets better.  


Chris never voted for a millage rate over 4 to be implemented in Johns Creek.  He did support an amendment to the motion to lower the rate from the roll back rate.  But if that passed, that did not mean that Chris would have then voted to set the millage rate at that level.  


His flyer is deceptive at the very least.  Council Members should offer amendments to motions to drive the conversation, even if ultimately they will not support it.  That is how you hear the debate on the principles and positions. 

 
It’s a shame he has to try and paint a picture that suggests something that is simply not true about Coughlin. 

 
So, are the statements made on Mr. Thomas’ flyer campaign flyer promises he will live up to?


Do you really think Thomas will have a budget where every expenditure will be justified?   Prior to implementation of this budget?  Has he actually watched the budget process?


Unless he redefines what audit means, the answer would be no.  

Let’s combine that with his argument that critical projects have been delayed and defunded.  We know that many of these projects have shown little to no value to Johns Creek. 

But they were “promised”  with TSPLOST.  Should not an elected official challenge wasteful spending on behalf of the residents?  Absolutely.


And to answer his question?


Yes Chris Coughlin represents me. And I will be voting for him because he has represented me, challenged bad ideas pushed by the majority, improved our traffic flow on 141, and worked on many other issues to improved our quality of life.

8 thoughts on “Johns Creek City Council and Post 4

  1. It seems obvious that Adam Thomas just has an issue with Chris Coughlin. I trust that Johns Creek citizens are smart enough not to get drawn into whatever personal vendetta Adam has going on. He certainly hasn’t given anyone a reason to vote for him. In contrast Chris Coughlin has been an incredible advocate of Johns Creek citizens for the past two years and stuck to his principles. None of his opponents offer anything that compares.

    • Or could it be that those advising Thomas are telling him that is the way to be an incumbent? What is ironic is that Thomas wants to look and make sure that every dollar is spent appropriately. Yet that is exactly what Coughlin is doing on TSPLOST projects, which the Public was promised by the Mayor prior to the TSPLOST vote.

      Chris Coughlin tried to get the property taxes cut for residents. Had he not pushed for the amendment at that time to lower the millage rate, and then done so the following year as well, it is unlikely we would have been successful in getting the property tax cut we did this year.

      Without Chris Coughlin on this council, we would have all paid much higher property taxes. Thank you Chris Coughlin for being a principled leader.

  2. Adam Thomas must be a real character. If he has a financial background, he’s not showing it in his propaganda.

    Has he ever even been to a Council Meeting?

  3. Adam has admitted multiple times that he is brand new to politics. He says it again here at the Medlock Bridge forum. Video link below. He says he has been in politics for about 45 days (at the 2 minute mark). He is a joke — a joke with a lot of money to spend — but still a joke. I will start taking him seriously when he spends a little more than 45 days learning about the issues and coming up with real solutions. Spoiler alert: Getting rid of Chris Coughlin is not a solution. I am not sure what is motivating Adam but it is clearly personal and I suggest the Johns Creek voters stay out of Adams little vendetta and stick with what works. Chris Coughlin is working for us.

    https://www.preservejohnscreek.com/pjc-news/mb-candidate-forum-post4

  4. Another to be aware of….Adam Thomas just accepted a contribution of $1500 from Tharon Johnson of Atlanta, the founder and CEO of Paramount Consulting Group. Ask yourself why a political consulting and lobbyist firm in Atlanta is financially supporting the Adam Thomas campaign. http://paramountconsults.com/

  5. Why would you leave the actual millage rate info out of your article? Deliberately doing so leaves suspicion, no? Let’s take a look at the info so readers can determine for themselves. To clarify for all readers: the proposed millage rate was 4.36. Councilman Coughlin made the motion to reduce the rate to 4.328. The motion to amend the proposed rate was defeated by a vote of 5 – 2 (Council Members Broadbent, Davenport, Lin, Zaprowski, and Mayor Bodker supporting the higher rate, Council Members Coughlin and Endres supporting the lower rate).

    Meeting minutes are available for anyone who wants to review them.

    • Actually it does not leave any suspicion. Coughlin voted to amend a motion on the floor. Once again, if the motion had passed, the vote to set the millage rate had still not been held. Coughlin, therefore never voted to set ANY millage rate above 4. Do you understand the difference between voting on the motion to amend and the motion to set the millage rate? There is a big difference. You know it. And I know it.

      Thomas knew what he was doing in trying to frame this false argument.

  6. EJ Moosa: Why did you fail to include the actual millage rate info in your article? Let’s let the readers determine for themselves…here’s the information:

    Proposed millage rate was 4.36. Councilman Coughlin made the motion to reduce the rate to 4.328. Let’s again reiterate that: proposed rate was 4.36 and Coughlin made the motion to reduce it to 4.328.
    The motion to amend the proposed rate was defeated by a vote of 5 – 2 (Council Members Broadbent, Davenport, Lin, Zaprowski, and Mayor Bodker supporting the higher rate, Council Members Coughlin and Endres supporting the lower rate).

    Meeting minutes available are available to anyone who wants to view them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.