MIAMI — The Miami-Dade County Recreation and Tourism Committee on Oct. 14 unanimously approved an ordinance amending the county code to allow targeted mitigation for peafowl in unincorporated areas, adding District 7 to a plan originally prepared for District 12.

The measure, presented as agenda item 1 G 1, amends Miami‑Dade County Code section 5‑16 and approves a District 12 unincorporated‑area mitigation policy for peafowl. Board member Bermudez said the policy will allow residents to seek relief and that the district will dedicate funds to implement removal and mitigation work.

Committee members said the ordinance lets the county “opt out” of certain regulations relating to peafowl for specified unincorporated areas and attaches a mitigation plan to the ordinance. Bermudez said the intent is to offer relief in areas where large numbers of the birds have become a nuisance and caused property damage. "But I'm telling you, when you see them, they cause a lot of damage in people's homes," Bermudez said.

Why it matters: Committee members described the item as a local response to concentrated peafowl populations that county staff and residents say have damaged property and created public‑access problems in some neighborhoods. Commissioners said municipalities such as Pinecrest, South Miami and Coral Gables have city-level ordinances or processes to address peafowl, but unincorporated neighborhoods in some districts lacked a parallel remedy.

What the ordinance does: According to the text read into the record, the ordinance would amend section 5‑16 of the Miami‑Dade County Code to permit the county to opt out of regulations relating to peafowl in any designated unincorporated area, approve the attached mitigation policy for District 12, and provide for funding to implement the policy. Committee discussion said the mitigation work would be carried out under contract with a nuisance wildlife control operator listed with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and that the work would be performed humanely.

Amendment and funding: Commissioner Regalado asked to be added as a co‑sponsor and requested that District 7 be included in the item; committee members accepted that friendly amendment. Committee discussion noted that the cost will be borne by the sponsoring districts rather than the county general fund. A staff member clarified that the amendment applies both to the uncodified portion of the ordinance approving the plan and to the plan itself, which is attached to the ordinance.

Procedural note: A staff speaker observed that formally approving a plan is often done by resolution (rezonning/rezos were referenced in the meeting), but here the plan is baked into the ordinance. Staff said they would confirm internally whether the title or form needs adjustment and, if necessary, prepare a separate item later.

Vote: The committee recorded unanimous approval in roll call (Commissioners Bastian, McGee, Regalado and Vice Chairwoman Steinberg voted yes). The motion was described in the record as an ordinance adoption as amended to include District 7.

What the record shows and next steps: Committee members described petitions from residents and video evidence of property damage; those materials were referenced in the discussion but were not read into the record in full during the committee meeting. The ordinance text on file identifies the code section amended (5‑16) and attaches the District 12 mitigation policy; the committee added District 7 to that plan. The item passed the committee; the transcript does not specify the committee's next formal step for the ordinance on the full Board of County Commissioners.

Ending: Committee members said the change was intended to align county policy for unincorporated areas with existing city practices where cities have their own peafowl rules. Committee action on Oct. 14 adopted the ordinance as amended and included co‑sponsorship by Commissioner Regalado.