Incumbent Mayor Evalyn Moore faced challenger Tres Davis at the 2017 City of Richmond Candidates Forum on Tuesday April 18 at the George Memorial Library. Seventy five people were in attendance for the forum, which was presented by the Central Fort Bend Chamber’s Governmental Affairs Committee. The committee chair - Matt Breazeale - acted as moderator. Before answering questions, both candidates introduce themselves, give their credentials and their reasons for running. As challenger, Davis started off the introductions and noted that he has a master’s degree in School Administration, that he had started petitions that added additional members to the city chamber and that he could make tough choices as mayor. “I believe [the reason] why I am the best candidate for the position of mayor is [because] I have no problem standing in the gap when it is time to make those hard decisions,” said Davis. Incumbent Moore gave her introduction by thanking the chamber for hosting the forum and noting her accomplishments during her term as mayor – claiming an increase in city revenue and lowering taxes – and her hopes for the city’s future. “I hope the citizens of Richmond will continue to place their trust in me as we keep our vision sharply focused on the past, the present, and the future,” said Moore. “A vision of maintaining our historic values and traditions as we manage growth, and create future opportunities” One question asked what each candidate felt the top issues are for the city and how the they plan to solve them. Moore believes the city’s top issue is unrestrained and indiscriminate growth and noted that the city’s citizens voted in favor of zoning and planning in May 2013 and that the city’s leaders needed to implement those restraints while fostering growth and opportunities. Davis believes the top city’s top issue is its lack of quality employment, that many newer neighborhood homes are starting out at $300,000, but not many of the residents employed within the city are able to afford those homes. “We have to bring business and industry into the city,” said Davis. “We have to do something different than [putting] everything out on 59. Richmond proper is dying.” Another question addressed city spending. Although Davis has reviewed the yearly budgets online, he was unable to identify excess spending - citing that he is not privy to budget meetings as the reason. Even though he believes there could be departments which could be streamlined and reorganized for efficiency, the city’s police department is an area where more funding could be directed. Moore noted that 69 percent of the city’s budget is put towards public safety and stated that the money was well spent. She noted that a recently completed study by the Development Corporation of Richmond suggested that there has not been enough spending on business attraction and retention, increased tourism and on the aging infrastructure in older neighborhoods. The final question of the evening asked the candidates to explain why they believe they are the best candidate for the job. Moore cited her experience and record of accomplishments, including lowering taxes, raising the city’s bond rating, and attracting new businesses and developments. She also expressed her feelings towards the city as a life long resident. “I love Richmond, I went to Jane Long Elementary School and Lamar High School, I eat out here, shop here, buy my gas here, and I greatly respect our residents, and want to provide them with opportunities to see them all do well, while having new amenities to enjoy,” said Moore. Davis stated that he is the best candidate as he can bring beneficial change to Richmond and will make it accountable to the residents. “In the past two years alone, I have been instrumental in having the Economic Development Corporation follow State funding guidelines, I was instrumental in expanding the Richmond Commission, I was also instrumental in discovering that the City has an Ethics board [which] they have not been using,” said Davis. “This is all when my opponent, current city manager and others were telling me that I was incorrect.”