Putnam County health officials told the county legislature on Tuesday they expect a JEWL settlement disbursement for the county but cautioned the money will be narrow in allowable uses and subject to attorney‑general reporting rules. Shauna Siegel, speaking for the county health department, said the state’s allocation process has been delayed by the New York attorney general’s office.

The update matters because the county expects roughly $1.6 million for Putnam County from the multi‑state JEWL settlement, but health staff said the state has not yet completed disbursements and the attorney general’s office is clarifying allowable uses. “We don't have the money yet. We should have received it earlier this year, but the attorney general's office is delayed with their disbursements,” Siegel said.

The health department said the settlement rules appear to mirror existing ATUPA (tobacco/enforcement) grant uses — prevention, education, cessation and enforcement — and staff plan to update a recent community assessment to guide spending. Siegel said the county will “reassess where the needs are” and consult community partners who work on prevention and education.

Lawmakers pressed staff on the structure and timing of payments and on whether the funds will be recurring. Siegel described uncertainty about the payment schedule. “There was a correction… and then the next five will each be one‑eighth of the total amount,” she said, but added the attorney general’s office has not finalized the number of payments and has said it will review whether funds can roll over across years.

Legislators pressed two programmatic issues. First, several asked that settlement funds act as supplements — not replacements — for existing county tobacco‑prevention funding. Siegel said county finance staff are exploring whether settlement money can be used for personnel costs, overtime and other administrative expenses and warned that some ATUPA fine revenues that currently sustain programs are volatile. “I'd like to see these dollars be supplemental, not replacement,” one legislator said.

Second, lawmakers and the department discussed scope: whether funds limited to youth vaping can instead support broader cessation and environmental efforts such as proper vape disposal or services for adults already suffering chronic disease related to vaping. Siegel said the county sought clarification from the attorney general and state Department of Health and reported a webinar in which health departments asked whether “other related uses” language could allow broader programming. The AG’s office has indicated there will be reporting requirements tied to the funds.

Staff described next steps: update the county’s vaping needs assessment with community partners, coordinate with BOCES and school districts about school‑based programming funded at the regional level, and plan tracking and reporting if the county receives the funds. Siegel cautioned that some uses — for example, enforcement activities handled by the health department’s environmental health unit — could require additional capacity.

The legislature took no formal vote on use or acceptance of settlement funds during the informational presentation. Health staff said they will continue to brief legislators as the attorney general’s office finalizes disbursement timing and allowable uses.