Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Background Screening topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

New AHCA fingerprinting clearinghouse will require district‑wide rescreening; Lake County staff outline schedule and costs

2082333 · January 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff and presenter Guido Zamora told the board that a state shift to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) fingerprint clearinghouse will require Lake County Schools to resubmit fingerprints for employees in phases through 2027, will add per‑employee fees, and will increase staffing and vendor needs to meet deadlines.

Mr. Ward introduced a policy update from Guido Zamora on new fingerprinting and background‑screening requirements tied to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA).

“Senate bill 676 (2023) amended statutes 1012.315 and 1012.467,” Zamora said, and explained the effect: AHCA is centralizing eligibility determinations through a clearinghouse that will make hiring eligibility determinations under the statutory disqualification list. Zamora said the district must resubmit fingerprints on a phased schedule: employees whose last fingerprint submission was on or before June 30, 2021 must be rescreened by June 30, 2025; those last screened July 1, 2021–June 30, 2022 must be rescreened by June 30, 2026; and a third group by June 30, 2027.

Zamora said the clearinghouse will return an eligibility determination (eligible or not eligible) and that the system’s processing time is typically 24–48 hours but can stretch to 7–10 days if additional information is needed — a possible constraint on hiring timelines.

He described material cost and operational changes the district must manage. Zamora said AHCA’s proposed fee structure includes a $30 five‑year resubmission fee (paid up front, he said) and that vendors and clearinghouse fees change the final per‑person cost. Zamora used a vendor example that produces a total per person of $89.25 (broken down in his presentation as collection, photo and FDLE/FBI processing fees); he also said the district currently pays approximately $73.25 under its live‑scan vendor. Using the district’s employee counts and AHCA deadlines, Zamora estimated one‑year costs of roughly $118,000, a second‑year impact of about $104,000, and a peak year near $372,000 to meet the 2027 cohort requirement.

Zamora said the district will need added staff coordination to schedule and process fingerprints, new cameras on live‑scan devices to meet photo requirements, and logistical options such as sending staff to bus lots to fingerprint bus drivers or having employees attend off‑site live‑scan centers. He also said contractors and vendors will be included in the screening process; volunteers and substitutes are expected to follow in later phases and could create an additional cost exposure.

Zamora said AHCA is expected to provide additional guidance, including an exemption process for some employees whose disqualifying records predate current statutory standards; he said the state has verbally indicated some employees with historic disqualifying charges may be allowed to continue but formal criteria were not yet available.

Board members asked for clarification on fees, vendor options and timelines. Zamora said the clearinghouse will provide a username and portal for districts to check results and that FDLE will issue ORI numbers to charter schools so some charters can fingerprint under their own agency numbers. He also said the district is reviewing its existing Fieldprint vendor contract and weighing other vendors or the cost of operating its own live‑scan and submission capability.

Zamora and board members noted the district would request state legislative funding to offset the mandate’s fiscal impact and that the district’s first priority would be meeting the clearinghouse deadlines.

No board vote was held; Zamora’s presentation was informational and the board requested additional cost details and an operational plan to meet the phased deadlines.