Gov. Phil Murphy Vetoes 2 NJ Coronavirus Bills, Signs Tax Bill

NEW JERSEY. – Gov. Phil Murphy has vetoed two bills that were meant to assist people struggling amid the New Jersey coronavirus crisis.

The bills would have afforded more protections for first responders and suspended rental payments for some small businesses (see bills below).

At the same time, Murphy on Thursday signed legislation (A4157) that temporarily extends the deadline to file a property tax appeal to July 1, and the deadline for county boards of taxation to render decisions in tax appeal cases to September 30.

The bill takes effect immediately and applies retroactively to April 1.

“Our current public health crisis has substantially disrupted many of our routine processes, including the ability of New Jersey homeowners to file timely property tax appeals,” said Murphy. “Establishing clear dates for tax appeals and decisions will eliminate the potential for a backlog that would only cause further fiscal uncertainty for taxpayers and municipal governments.”

Here are the bills Murphy vetoed:

Rental payments

Murphy vetoed a bill (S2363/A3921) that would have suspended rent payments for some small businesses.

The bill would have authorized a “distressed small business tenant” to suspend payments of rent following the issuance of a “rent suspension executive order.”

The bill would define a distressed small business tenant as a business that had 50 or fewer
employees on February 10, that leases real property for non-residential purposes, and whose monthly revenue does not exceed 80 percent of the tenant’s “reasonable expectations” as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Murphy acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic is having a "devastating impact on small businesses throughout the country and here in New Jersey."

"Our small businesses are not only the storefront shops that anchor Main Street, they are also the engines of our state’s economy, responsible for creating jobs and spurring economic growth," Murphy said.

He commended the bill’s sponsors for their efforts to identify "creative measures to sustain our small business community during this extraordinarily challenging time. "

Murphy, however, said he's concerned about the impact emergency rent suspension would have on the state's non-residential property owners "who are, in many cases, themselves small businesses."

"The bill disregards the financial position of the impacted parties, shifting the financial burden in all cases from tenants onto property owners, who may not be relieved of their own obligations
to pay mortgage payments and property taxes," he said.

Murphy said direct financial aid, including rental assistance, is a better approach and a "necessary
lifeline for many small businesses struggling to survive these troubling times."

Protection for first responders

Murphy also vetoed legislation (S-2351/A3924) that affords employment protection to certain emergency medical responders.

The bill would hace prohibited an employer from terminating, dismissing, or suspending an employee who fails to report to work because the employee is serving as an emergency medical responder during a state of emergency.

Murphy commended the sponsors’ efforts to preserve the ranks of emergency medical responders, but he doesn't agree with the bill’s premise "that medical first responders are more essential in an emergency than police and fire first responders."

"The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented stress on all of New Jersey’s first responders," he said. "While this bill would support the staffing levels of emergency medical responders, it would do so at the expense of law enforcement and fire departments."

Murphy said the work ranks of police and corrections have been "ravaged" by the COVID-19 virus.

"I am particularly concerned about how this bill could exacerbate staffing shortages that may result if New Jersey is hit by a second wave of the virus in the fall or winter," he said. "Moreover, because the bill is not limited to the COVID-19 emergency, I am concerned about the unintended consequences it could have on the state’s ability to effectively respond to the unique challenges and circumstances presented by future public health emergencies and states of emergency."