Christie Pushes Income-Tax Cut as Democrats Eye Property Levies

Governor Chris Christie told a group of business leaders that Democrats in the Legislature may jeopardize New Jersey’s economic recovery by putting social issues ahead of job-creation and tax cuts.
…
“They want to play around with social issues to try and make people look bad,” Christie said. “Here’s what the public is going to care about: Are they working? Are they working in a job that pays well and provides their family with health insurance?”

Christie’s remarks echoed his Jan. 17 State of the State speech to the Legislature and a subsequent series of public meetings in which he pressed his case for hastening what he calls “the Jersey comeback” by cutting taxes. The Washington- based Tax Foundation yesterday ranked New Jersey last among U.S. states in terms of business climate.
…
Assembly Majority Leader Louis Greenwald, a Cherry Hill Democrat, said his party is weighing “a couple of ideas” to lower pressure from New Jersey’s highest-in-the-nation property taxes. He declined to give specifics following Christie’s speech, while saying any relief would be both immediate and long-term.
…
Christie took office in 2010 pledging to cut taxes as the state’s economic conditions improved. He said his proposed reduction would spur the state’s economy, which he added should be the top issue in Trenton.

“Do they care about the stuff we’ve been talking about for the past week?” Christie said, referring to state residents. “What they care about is whether their husband or wife will have a job, will they have money to put food on the table?”

The governor has so far declined to say how he’d make up for the revenue if taxes are cut. Democrats have said a 10 percent rollback may mean as much as a $1.1 billion decline in state receipts.
…
“People care about civil rights, and they also care about the middle-class property tax relief and job creation plans this governor vetoed as he zealously protects and advocates for tax cuts for the rich,” Tom Hester, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, said last night. “His priorities are so out of step with working class New Jersey.”

Oliver, a Democrat from East Orange, has said that an analysis by her office showed a family with a $50,000 annual income would pay $80 less in taxes under Christie’s plan, while someone earning $1 million would save $7,200.

Bank Foreclosure Deal Reviewed by States as Delaware Drops Out

State attorneys general reviewed a proposed settlement with banks over foreclosure and mortgage- servicing practices that negotiators are pressing to complete as Delaware said it would reject a deal said to total $25 billion.

Representatives of Democratic attorney general offices met at a Chicago hotel yesterday to discuss the negotiated terms and ask questions, said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. Miller, who is helping to lead talks, said an agreement with the banks is getting closer.

“There are still issues to be worked out,” Miller said in an interview. “This is one step along the way, and it was a very productive day.”

State and federal officials have been negotiating a settlement with the five largest mortgage servicers — Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and Ally Financial Inc (ALLY). Talks were triggered by disclosures that the companies were using faulty documents in seizing homes.

The $25 billion deal would fund loan principal writedowns for homeowners and provide refinancings, a person familiar with the matter said before yesterday’s meeting. The proposal also sets requirements for how the banks conduct home foreclosures. The settlement would drop to $19 billion if California Attorney General Kamala Harris decides not to sign on, the person said.
…
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden won’t sign on to the proposed agreement as drafted, Delaware Deputy Attorney General Ian McConnel said in a phone interview. He declined to comment on the reason for Biden’s decision.

Biden has been among a group of attorneys general, including New York’s Eric Schneiderman and Harris in California, who have said any settlement shouldn’t protect banks from claims that haven’t been fully investigated, such as claims stemming from the packaging of mortgages into securities sold to investors.

From the NYT:

Political Push Moves a Deal on Mortgages Inches Closer

About one million homeowners facing foreclosure could have their mortgage burden cut by about $20,000 each as part of a long-awaited deal taking shape among state attorneys general, federal officials and the nation’s largest mortgage servicers.

But a final agreement remained out of reach Monday despite political pressure from the White House, which had been trying to have a deal in hand that President Obama could highlight in his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
…
The agreement could be worth about $25 billion, state and federal officials with knowledge of the negotiations said, with up to $17 billion of that used to reduce principal for homeowners facing foreclosure. Another portion would be set aside for homeowners who have been the victim of improper foreclosure practices, with about 750,000 families receiving about $1,800 each. But bank officials said Monday that the total amount of principal reduction and reimbursement would depend on how many states eventually sign on.

Gov. Christie takes rosy look at state revenues

By calling for a 10 percent income tax cut, Gov. Chris Christie must believe boom times are coming to state finances.

Because with the scheduled increases for pension payments and transportation funding, it will take tax revenue jumps of 4 percent or 5 percent a year — or smaller increases combined with further state budget cuts — to pay for the proposed tax cut that would eventually reach some $1.2 billion or more.

It was hard for most analysts and experts to see that scenario on Wednesday as the state reported that tax collections for the current budget were $325.7 million, or 3.2 percent, under the administration’s own expectations.

Meanwhile, New Jersey is required by law, under reforms Christie enacted, to pay $484 million toward its pension system by June 30, and then dramatically increase that contribution to $1 billion in the next fiscal year and $5 billion by fiscal year 2016.

“The governor set out a laudable goal of reducing the tax burden, but I would caution that we do it in a prudent way,” said Raphael J. Caprio, a professor of public administration at Rutgers University who was part of a group that issued a dire report on state finances last year.

“As we phase in tax cuts, we will be phasing in pension liabilities and other obligations. We need to careful of undermining one at the expense of the other,” Caprio said.

In addition to pension costs, the state plans to spend $8 billion, through 2016, for the Transportation Trust Fund, which pays for large-scale bridge and road repairs, new trains and rail, and other major projects.
…
Private estimates Wednesday pegged the Christie tax cut as a $150 million cost to the upcoming budget, then grow to $350 million in fiscal 2014 and $950 million in fiscal 2015 before being fully implemented at $1.2 billion a year later.

Special Report: Did N.J. property tax reform help most taxpayers?

New Jersey homeowners paid an average of 2.4 percent more for property taxes in 2011, the smallest increase in nearly two decades, showing Gov. Chris Christie’s push to restrain local levies might be working.

A Star-Ledger analysis of taxes in all 566 New Jersey towns shows the average property tax bill was $7,758 last year, an increase of about $182 from 2010.

Although more than 82 percent of the towns saw some increase in their average property tax bills last year, the 2.4 percent increase was a significantly slower rate of growth, the newspaper found. In 2010, property taxes rose 4.1 percent and year-over-year increases topped 7 percent for three consecutive years in the middle of the past decade.

The last time property taxes rose by such a small rate was 1992, when they went up 1.9 percent, according to state figures.

Christie has made reining in New Jersey’s highest-in-the-nation property taxes a big goal of his administration. Along with the Democrat-controlled Legislature, he limited property tax collections for towns, schools and counties at 2 percent, starting last January.

“Am I satisfied? Of course not. Unless you told me it was 2 percent, I wouldn’t be satisfied,” Christie said in an interview. “But we’re making great progress. When you think that in the 10 years before I became governor, property taxes went up 70 percent in 10 years and now people are talking about 2-and-change increase, that’s great progress and progress that nobody else before we got here created in this state.”
…
The analysis found:

• In total, towns, counties and schools collected about $25.6 billion from taxpayers in 2011, a 2.5 percent increase from 2010.

• Loch Arbour Village in Monmouth County had the highest average property tax bill at $22,715. Tiny Tavistock Borough, Camden County, came in second with $22,297, followed by Millburn, where the average property taxpayer coughed up $19,989.

• The least expensive place to live in New Jersey was Walpack in Sussex County, where the average taxpayer paid about $514.

• Bergen, Morris and Union counties had the highest average property taxes in 2011. The average Bergen County taxpayer paid $10,317, a 2.6 percent jump from 2010. Morris County’s average bill was $9,644, while Union County overtook Essex for third place, at $9,493.

• The lowest county average was in Cumberland, where the average tax bill was about $3,419 in 2011, down 1 percent.

• Together, the three taxing authorities (towns, schools and counties) exceeded a 2 percent increase in collections in 312 towns, while 165 stayed within 2 percent and 89 saw the levy stay the same or decrease. In 2010, 529 towns saw an increase in their total tax levy, 425 of which went over 2 percent.

• Counties were more successful than towns and schools in keeping their tax levy below the cap.

From the Record:

‘Fake farmers’ get property tax break

Some New Jersey corporations, developers — and even a few politicians — get a tax break for growing as little as $500 worth of crops such as Christmas trees, using a law that critics say means higher property taxes for everyone else.

So-called “fake farmers” were faulted for taking advantage of a farmland tax break at a Senate Environment and Energy Committee hearing Thursday where lawmakers discussed doubling the minimum sales needed to qualify for the state’s farmland assessment.

“Time and again, we hear stories of this program being abused by owners of large, valuable residential properties to avoid paying their full property tax bill,” said Sen. Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth.
…
The farmland assessment dates back to the 1960s, and was designed to help struggling farmers while also discouraging the development of open space in a state known for its high real estate prices.

But opponents now see the tax break as outdated, and something many wealthy landowners are abusing to avoid paying their full property tax bills. The average property tax bill in New Jersey averaged a record-high $7,576 last year, but bills easily top $25,000 on larger properties.

Beck is sponsoring legislation that would double to $1,000 the minimum gross sales required to qualify for the farmland assessment, which sharply reduces how much property taxes are due on the part of a property that is used for agriculture.

The bill would also compel landowners who claim their property as farmland to submit clear evidence of agricultural sales or income to the state Division of Taxation. And local tax assessors would have to receive training on farmland assessments.
…
Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, cited an example of a 5-acre lot — the minimum allowed to qualify for the assessment — with an expensive home that uses only a fraction of the property to cultivate enough Christmas trees to qualify for the tax break.
…
No votes were taken on Beck’s bill Thursday, and it may not make it out of the Legislature before the current lame duck session ends early next year. But Beck, who’s been pressing the issue since she took office in 2008, pledged to keep pushing.

“It is time to close this ‘fake farmer’ loophole and ensure that only true farmers who produce substantial agricultural output be eligible for the program,” she said.

Two Princeton Towns in New Jersey Vote in Favor of Consolidation

Voters in the two New Jersey towns that share the Princeton name with the Ivy League university approved a ballot measure to merge.

The proposal to combine the 1.9-square-mile Princeton Borough, which includes the downtown shopping and dining area, and the surrounding 16.6-square-mile Princeton Township passed in the township with 3,542 in favor and 604 against, and in the borough with 1,238 for and 828 against, according to unofficial results posted on Mercer County’s website.

Governor Chris Christie, a first-term Republican, endorsed the plan, offering to pay 20 percent of the total $1.7 million cost. The towns had rejected at least three earlier consolidation attempts, most recently in 1996.

Christie, who took office in 2010, is urging New Jersey’s 566 municipalities to combine operations to help stem growth in property-tax bills, the highest in the U.S. Governors in Ohio and Pennsylvania are asking local officials to do the same. Property-tax collections, the main income source for municipalities, dropped 1.2 percent, to $88.5 billion, in the second quarter from a year earlier, the third-straight decline, the U.S. Census Bureau reported in September.
…
The borough, with about 12,300 residents, has a median home value of $619,700 and household income of $106,551. The township, with about 16,300 people, has a median home value of $760,900 and household income is $105,662, according to data from the municipalities.
…
A group called Preserve Our Historic Borough argued that a forecast $3.1 million in annual savings was overestimated by at least $1 million. Unite Princeton disagreed, saying the towns were aligned culturally and economically, and would never realize such savings on their own.

Princeton borough has $51 million of debt outstanding, while the township has $56.1 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Standard & Poor’s rates the borough AA+, the second-highest grade, and the township its top AAA.

The two towns share more than a dozen services including animal control, solid waste and fire. They have their own police departments, each with 30 sworn personnel. In both cases, police is the largest cost, $3.5 million in the borough and $3.8 million in the township, according to the center’s report. Their 2010 budgets combined totaled $65.1 million.

‘Friction’ in Obama’s Refi Proposal

The response to President Obama’s recent proposal to refinance more borrowers into lower interest rate mortgages was at best underwhelming and at worst scathing. The plan would expand the government’s so-far disappointing, Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which helps current but underwater borrowers with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans to refinance.

“Mr. President, the housing market is the foundation of the U.S. economy. It is cracked and chipping away,” writes Florida real estate consultant Jack McCabe in an editorial in the Herald-Tribune.

“The walls are beginning to cave. Your answer, anecdotally, seems to be put a new roof on it.”
…
Unfortunately the plan, which could allow borrowers with more than 25 percent in negative equity to refinance, is being deemed too costly as well. While the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost investors in the original mortgages between $13 and $15 billion (while potentially saving 111,000 borrowers from defaulting), analysts at JP Morgan Chase say it would cost more:

If such a policy were successful on a large scale, it would clearly devalue higher coupons, and would threaten lower coupons with incremental gross supply. A more modest HARP overhaul, while less disruptive, still forces investors to require more conservative valuations until details emerge.

All these arguments, however, may be moot, as the overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which would have to approve the refinance effort, is sounding wildly cautious. In a statement following the President’s speech, Director Ed DeMarco states, “If there are frictions associated with the origination of HARP loans that can be eased while still achieving the program’s intent of assisting borrowers and reducing credit risk for the Enterprises, we will seek to do so.”
…
Then there are issues of loan origination dates, put-backs on loans that default and borrower qualifications. Frictions. Beyond the friction, however, is the simple fact that a refinance program, while potentially an economic stimulus, is not a housing stimulus and shouldn’t be characterized as such. The HARP program is and always was for current borrowers and does nothing to address the millions of non-current borrowers, bank-owned foreclosed homes and falling home prices.

In many N.J. towns that undergo revaluations, homeowners end up paying more open space taxes

In the nation’s most densely populated state, Garden State residents value their space.

But they may not be so thrilled about what they are paying for it. The reason is a tiny municipal tax for open space — pennies per $100 of a home’s valuation — that, left unchecked, has added up to big bucks in some towns.

The result is homeowners in 50 New Jersey towns have paid out some $15 million more to preserve land, farms and historic and recreational sites than they had in previous years. In one town last year, the tax bills jumped by more than $150 for some homeowners.

The quirk comes into play when towns conduct revaluations. The problem is towns — which make adjustments to prevent other slices of the tax pie from skyrocketing — fail to do the same for the open space tax. Because that tax’s rate is tied to property values, the levy goes up when properties appreciate.

The longer a town goes between revaluations, the more homes are worth and the bigger the bite taken by the open space tax.
…
Over the last five years, 71 New Jersey towns with open space taxes underwent property revaluations. Nearly three-quarters of them failed to adjust their open space tax rates, leading to a 128 percent increase in their combined levies — a windfall of more than $15.5 million. By contrast, municipal taxes in those towns rose an average of 12 percent.
…
“I don’t think there was any malicious intent in their error,” said Librizzi, who currently serves as the tax assessor for Verona, Nutley and North Caldwell. “I don’t think the general public completely understands how the open space tax is calculated.”

More Borrowers Underwater: Why We Should Care

Falling home prices at the turn of the year pushed more borrowers into a negative equity position, meaning they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.

In Q4, 23 percent of borrowers nationwide, or 11.1 million, were holding “underwater” mortgages; that’s a collective $750 billion of negative equity, according to the latest survey from CoreLogic. That’s up from 22.5 percent, or 10.8 million, in Q3, again, thanks to falling home prices. To make matters worse, 2.4 million borrowers have less than 5 percent equity in their homes, deemed as “near-negative” equity.
…
So why should we care if the bulk of these underwater borrowers can still make their monthly mortgage payments? “Negative equity holds millions of borrowers captive in their homes, unable to move or sell their properties,” notes CoreLogic’s chief economist Mark Fleming. “Until the high level of negative equity begins to recede, the housing and mortgage finance markets will remain very sluggish.”
…
Negative equity will slow the pace of home sales, no question, but it will also provide more problems for policymakers and state and federal regulators. Right now the mortgage market is at the mercy of a huge potential settlement with the state attorneys general and a whole bunch of feds, part of which will be a push for principal write down on troubled loans. With negative equity continuing to rise, the principal write down argument gains strength. I spoke with Missouri state AG Chris Koster yesterday at a conference in DC:

“I think principal write-down is the right way to go. Twenty to 25 billion dollars is a significant amount of money. The big question is are we talking about five banks, 15 banks who chip in on that fund? We don’t know the answer to that until we get through these negotiations, but we’re at the beginning of something serious that could be successful.”

Without Loan Giants, 30-Year Mortgage May Fade Away

How might home buying change if the federal government shuts down the housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan, the steady favorite of American borrowers since the 1950s, could become a luxury product, housing experts on both sides of the political aisle say.

Interest rates would rise for most borrowers, but urban and rural residents could see sharper increases than the coveted customers in the suburbs.

Lenders could charge fees for popular features now taken for granted, like the ability to “lock in” an interest rate weeks or months before taking out a loan.
…
Douglas J. Elliott, a financial policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Congress was being forced for the first time in decades to grapple with the cost of subsidizing middle-class mortgages. The collapse of Fannie and Freddie took with it the pretense that the government could do so at no risk to taxpayers, he said.

“The politicians would like something that provides a deep and wide subsidy for housing that doesn’t show up on the budget as costing anything. That’s what we had” with Fannie and Freddie, Mr. Elliott said. “But going forward there is going to be more honest accounting.”

Some Republicans and Democrats say the price is too high. They want the government to pull back, letting the market dictate price, terms and availability.

“A purely private mortgage finance market is a very serious and very achievable goal,” Representative Scott Garrett, the New Jersey Republican who oversees the subcommittee that oversees Fannie and Freddie, said at a hearing this week. “No one serious in this debate believes our housing market will return to the 1930s.”
…
Hanging in the balance are the basic features of a mortgage loan: the interest rate and repayment period.

Fannie and Freddie allow people to borrow at lower rates because investors are so eager to pump money into the two companies that they accept relatively modest returns. The key to that success is the guarantee that investors will be repaid even if borrowers default — a promise ultimately backed by taxpayers.

A long line of studies has found that the benefit to borrowers is relatively modest, less than one percentage point. But that was before the flood. Fannie, Freddie and other federal programs now support roughly 90 percent of new mortgage loans because lenders cannot raise money for mortgages that do not carry government guarantees.

One prominent investor, William H. Gross, the co-head of Pimco, the major bond investment firm, has estimated that he would demand a premium of three percentage points to buy such loans — a cost that would be passed on to the borrower.
…
Longer terms make ownership affordable only by increasing the total cost of the loan, because the borrower pays interest for a longer period. Moreover, Mr. Pollock noted that over the last several years, borrowers with adjustable-rate loans paid less as interest rates fell, while those with fixed rates kept paying the same amount for devalued homes.

“One of the reasons that American housing finance is in such bad shape right now is the 30-year mortgage,” he said, noting that such loans are not available in most countries. “For many people, it’s not at all clear that that’s the best product.”

Mortgage interest tax deduction may be in danger

President Obama’s 2012 budget proposes an across-the-board 30% cut to itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers. This includes the mortgage interest tax deduction.

Currently, interest on a mortgage taken out to buy or improve a home can be fully deducted if the amount of the loan is less than $1 million for married couples and $500,000 for singles. Home equity loans taken out for anything else is limited to $100,000 for couples and $50,000 for singles.

In December, a commission appointed by President Obama to reform the tax code and reduce the nearly $14 trillion in U.S. deficit submitted a proposal to lower the cap on the mortgage interest tax deduction for purchase loans from $1 million to $500,000.

Obama’s budget did not specifically name the mortgage interest tax deduction. But he does propose cuts “across-the-board.” These cuts will pay for a three-year fix to the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which the president said in his budget has driven the country deeper into deficit year after year in order to prevent this tax from hurting too many middle-class families.

A spokesperson for the office of management and budget said the proposal caps the value of itemized deductions at the 28% tax bracket.

“For too long, we have tolerated a tax system that’s a complex, inefficient and loophole-riddled mess,” Obama said in the budget.

The National Association of Realtors, the biggest advocate for the mortgage interest tax deduction, voiced concerns when the commission first brought up the proposal in December.

“The tax deductibility of interest paid on mortgages is a powerful incentive for homeownership and has been one of the simplest provisions in the federal tax code for more than 80 years,” said NAR President Ron Phipps at the time.

Out-of-State Owners Could Face Tax Bill

Connecticut and New Jersey residents with a Hamptons summer cottage or a Manhattan pied-a-terre are about to get a nasty surprise: New York state wants more taxes from them.

A New York court ruled last month that all income earned by a New Canaan, Conn., couple is subject to New York state taxes because they own a summer home on Long Island they used only a few times a year. They have been hit with an additional tax bill of $1.06 million.

Tax experts and real estate brokers say this ruling could boost the tax bill for thousands of business executives who own New York City apartments they use only occasionally. It could also hurt sales in the Hamptons and New York’s other vacation-home communities.

“People will think twice about spending any summer time in New York,” says Robert Willens, a New York-based tax consultant. “The amount of tax they could be subjected to is likely to outweigh the benefit.”

A spokesman for the state Taxation Department issued a written statement that said it was “pleased” with the decision. “However, these cases are fact-intensive and as such each case stands on its own specific fact pattern,” it said.

For years, New York law stated that residents of another state who spend more than 183 days a year in New York have to pay taxes on any income they make in this state. But they generally haven’t had to pay New York taxes on income they make outside of the state or on their spouses’ income if they work elsewhere.

Under the recent ruling, this might change for many out-of-state residents who own vacation homes or apartments here. In effect, it reinterprets what counts as a permanent residence.

In defining a “permanent place of abode,” New York tax code specifically excludes “a mere camp or cottage, which is suitable and used only for vacations.” New York tax experts say the new ruling is the first they recall that counts summer homes as permanent residences.

Paterson officials will argue to limit tax increase

City officials will travel to Trenton on Monday to plead their case for a lighter municipal tax increase.

The state Department of Community Affairs, which must approve Paterson’s budget by Feb. 28, has recommended the city raise municipal taxes by more than 40 percent in order to close a $54 million deficit.

The 40 percent increase would mean taxes on a home assessed at $350,000, the city average, would go up $1,400.

The City Council wants to limit the increase to $544, meaning next quarter’s tax bill on an average home would increase by $272.

Meanwhile, a temporary compromise was struck before this quarter’s tax bills were sent out, with a $467 increase for the average home.

A smaller tax hike would be possible, in part, through spending cuts across all departments. and by slashing salaries by 15 percent for top earners.

Employees making between $10,000 and $25,999 a year would see only a 1 percent pay cut. Council members, who are paid $41,000 annually, would take a 15 percent cut.

The salary cuts should save about $7 million and avoid more than 100 layoffs, said Councilman-at-Large Kenneth Morris, who, as finance chairman, drafted the amendment to the budget. Morris said the salary cuts would be paid back upon retirement.

Mayor Jeffery Jones has already submitted a plan to the state that calls for about 150 police layoffs.

His administration has so far brought the deficit down to $12 million, but mostly through a 29 percent tax hike.

Inspector general: Mortgage modification program a ‘failure’

A mortgage modification program aimed at saving homeowners from foreclosure has failed because regulators are “afraid to rein in or impose penalties on the mortgage servicers” whose record “has been nothing short of abysmal,” the program’s watchdog told Congress Wednesday.

As a result, some House Republicans moved to scrap the 2-year-old program.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s bank bailouts, bluntly labeled the mortgage program a “failure” in testimony before the House oversight committee.

“And I think that if Treasury doesn’t respond to some of these things in a quick manner,” he said, the call to dismantle the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) “is just going to become a louder and louder chorus, and understandably so.”

Three Republicans, led by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, introduced a bill Tuesday to end the program, saving up to $30 billion in unspent bailout funds.

“We think any objective look at this, it doesn’t warrant continued spending of taxpayer dollars,” Jordan said. He did not say what, if anything, he would replace the program with.

Gov. Christie says he will restore N.J. property tax rebates

Gov. Chris Christie said today he will restore property tax rebates that were eliminated in the budget last year.

“We’re going to reinstitute the rebate this spring and you’re going to get it quarterly as a credit on your property tax bill,” Christie said at a town hall meeting.

Christie said the rebates will not come as an annual check, as it did in previous incarnations.

Christie said the October checks cost the state money to print and mail. He also said that the state had to borrow and pay interest on the rebates because they were made during the fall.

Beginning in the second quarter of this calendar year, Christie said taxpayers eligible for rebates will see a reduction in the property tax bills. Christie said as the 2 percent property tax cap takes effect, his office will also try to offset additional increases.

“We’re looking for a way to increase the amount we give each quarter,” Christie said. “When this year’s budget coming up we’re going to see if we can expand the program further to try to give people some relief as we expand this 2 percent cap.”