Following the release of the Missouri State Auditor’s report led by Scott Fitzpatrick, Arnold Mayor Bill Moritz sat down for two interviews to respond to the audit’s findings and explain the city’s position.

The audit raised questions about spending outside district boundaries, incomplete financial records, project delays, and the role of city attorney Bob Sweeney. In response, Moritz strongly defended the city’s actions, rejected the idea that the city had acted improperly, and argued that many of the auditor’s criticisms reflect disagreement with Transportation Development District, or TDD, law itself.

Below is a question-and-answer summary based on those conversations.

Q: Do you agree with the audit’s claim that TDD funds were misused?

Moritz said he does not agree with the audit’s conclusion that money was used improperly and argued the city is allowed to use TDD funds in ways that support the district’s success.

Q: Can TDD money legally be spent outside the district boundaries?

“You’re allowed to benefit the roads coming into the district… it is allowed.”

The mayor said the city is permitted to improve roads and approaches leading into the district if those improvements benefit the district itself.

Q: How far outside the district is the city allowed to go when spending large amounts of TDD funds?

That answer directly addressed the current status of the project. While Moritz repeatedly defended spending outside the district when it benefits the district, he did not provide a specific answer when asked where that legal limit ends.

Q: The audit says no major transportation project has been completed in more than a decade. Why does the city still say the TDD is active?

“They’re not done yet… there [are] three projects now [that remain uncompleted].”

Moritz said the city still considers the district active because projects remain unfinished.

He identified those projects as a connector road into the shopping district, improvements to the Highway 141 and Interstate 55 corridor, and broader improvements within and around the district.

Q: Is the connector road just another name for the old Arnold Parkway project?

“The connector road was part of the overall parkway project… but not in its entirety.”

That distinction is one of the key disagreements between the audit and the city.

The auditor suggested the connector road is essentially a continuation of the halted Arnold Parkway project under a different name. Moritz disagreed, saying the connector road was only one portion of the larger parkway plan.

Q: Why does the city still say the connector road matters?

“That shopping district is right there… the one thing that gets missed in all this is fixing those two intersections.”

Moritz argued the connector road is tied not only to redevelopment, but also to traffic and safety concerns.

“141 and Jeffco is the busiest intersection in Jefferson County.”

The mayor said the road remains important because it would improve access to the district and help address congestion.

Q: If the connector road is still a priority, what is the current plan to move it forward?

That answer was one of the clearest admissions in the interviews.

Despite describing the road as a priority, Moritz acknowledged there is currently no finalized development plan, contractor selected, or construction timeline.

“I don’t know what the routing on that road can be… it’s going to be depending upon who wants to sell their house to us and who does not.”

Instead, he said the city is continuing to acquire properties in the area.

Q: The audit raised concerns about missing financial records and reporting gaps. What happened?

Moritz said the reporting failures were tied to that staffing transition during the previous administration.

“They’re playing catch up now.”

He said the city is working to get records up to date.

Q: You have also criticized the audit process itself. Why?

“This has been going on for a year and a half… if something was so egregious, why did it take a year and a half?”

Moritz argued the length of the audit process undercut the seriousness of the claims.

Q: What do you think their goals were for the election?

“To make Arnold look bad, turn over the city council. I believe that actually took place.”

Moritz said he believes the timing of the audit had a direct impact on public perception.

“Of course it had an effect. And, that's why I was trying to delay until after. That's why I was asking them to come after the election.”

Q: One of the audit’s most serious concerns involves city attorney Bob Sweeney. Do you believe he misled auditors?

“There was no attempt to mislead these guys… the [Prosecuting] Attorney [of Jefferson County]’s going to find out if there was any attempt to mislead, and they’re going to find out there was not.”

The audit alleges that Sweeney may have misrepresented his role during closed door discussions with auditors, and that issue has been referred to the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney for review.

Moritz rejected that allegation.

Q: Is Bob Sweeney still the city attorney?

“He is the city attorney. We’re going to go out for RFQ…”

Moritz said the city plans to seek qualifications from legal firms and municipal attorneys, opening the position to outside candidates.

“Is Bob going to leave? I don’t know. I would imagine he’s going to reapply for the job too.”

That means Sweeney remains in the role, while the city begins a broader review of legal representation.

Q: The auditor suggested residents may have been overtaxed. What do you say to that?

“I think that was a ridiculous statement… I don’t like paying taxes either, but I do like having a nice city.”

Moritz said the TDD was designed to operate long term and argued the district still has work left to do.

According to him, the ARC TDD is slotted to remain in operation and continue to collect taxes until sometime in 2047 or 2048.

Q: After all of this, do you believe the city made mistakes?

“I think the city acted appropriately within state law… I do.”

That was the mayor’s clearest statement on the audit as a whole. Throughout both interviews, Moritz repeatedly rejected the idea that Arnold’s actions amounted to wrongdoing.

He also suggested the audit’s criticism is aimed less at Arnold specifically and more at the legal structure of TDDs themselves.

“Most everything he’s got a gripe about is with the TDD laws itself.”

He pushed back especially hard on language suggesting the city had operated in a gray area.

“What does that mean? Was it within state law or not within state law?”

Where the Mayor Stands

Across both interviews, Moritz made one point consistently: he does not believe the city’s actions justify the conclusions drawn in the audit.

He defended spending decisions, rejected claims of misuse, denied that the city attorney intentionally misled auditors, and maintained that the city acted within state law.

At the same time, some of the audit’s biggest questions remain open, including how far outside district boundaries large expenditures can go, why reporting requirements were missed for years, and how long it may take before the city’s unfinished projects move beyond property acquisition and into actual construction.