The Columbia County Board of County Commissioners voted 5–0 to express a formal vote of confidence in county public‑works official Kevin Kirby after a contentious exchange over resurfacing accounting and district work‑order allocations.

The motion, introduced during a public meeting after Commissioner Ford requested a detailed accounting of resurfacing funds for his district, followed Kirby’s admission that he had erred in where he charged a particular project’s costs. Kirby told the board he mistakenly charged part of the Cypress Lakes/Charles Road project to the general fund rather than the annual resurfacing account and described a post‑COVID funding environment in which inflation and contract amendments created shortfalls. "I did not capture that cost out of annual resurface," he said while explaining the accounting approach and the 30% inflation buffer used across projects.

Supporters of Kirby argued his institutional knowledge and day‑to‑day management of roads and construction made him indispensable. One commissioner who moved the confidence motion said Kirby "handles roads, construction, the budget, storm debris, storm response, and oversees every other department in the county," and urged the board to formalize support. Opponents and some members questioned whether a vote of confidence was the appropriate forum for personnel matters; the county attorney advised the board that a motion expressing the board's view was procedurally permissible under the board's rules.

Public comments and exchanges during the meeting sharpened the tone. Commenters and at least one commissioner alleged that certain actions and personnel decisions had been influenced by favoritism; a member of the public, Sylvester Warren, accused the board of double standards and alleged a recent vehicle incident involving a county employee, charges that other officials said they were not aware of.

After debate, the clerk took a roll‑call vote; the clerk announced the tally as 5 yes, 0 no. The board then moved on to subsequent agenda items.

Why it matters: The vote capped a high‑profile public dispute between a commissioner and county staff that played out in open session, raising questions about financial transparency, internal oversight, and how commissioners should handle personnel grievances in public meetings. The board did not take disciplinary action; instead it issued a public expression of confidence in Kirby’s work and asked staff to consider clearer policies for funding and accounting of resurfacing projects going forward.

What’s next: Commissioners discussed developing a policy to clarify how inflation‑driven cost overruns or amendments should be funded and said they expect staff to present options at a future meeting. The board adjourned and proceeded to other agenda items.