The Sterling Heights City Council is set to consider a resolution Tuesday evening opposing tax policy bills in Lansing that one councilmember contends put every municipality “at risk.”

The Michigan House voted in May to pass several bills that would slash property taxes across the state, but skipped a vote on a bill needed to replace some of the more than $5 billion in lost tax revenue.

At its Tuesday evening meeting, Sterling Heights City Council is slated to consider the adoption of a resolution opposing Michigan House Bills 5872 through 5879 due to “their potential negative impact on local government revenue, financial planning, and administrative operations,” a city document said. Sterling Heights City Manager Mark Vanderpool said the city would lose about $5 million in annual revenue from the bills. He said there’s no “guaranteed replacement” for the lost revenue, and the city would need to cut services, he said.

“So we’re deeply concerned about that,” he said.

The House’s sweeping tax cuts can’t be implemented without the passage of a separate bill levying a loosely defined 6% sales tax on services that has yet to be revealed. Republicans who control the House did not hold a vote on the sales tax hike bill, which remains in committee.

All combined, the four property tax cuts passed by the House are estimated to result in a tax revenue loss that could progress from $5.5 billion to $7.5 billion a year, according to a series of nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency analyses. 

Vanderpool, the Sterling Heights city manager, said he wants the state Legislature to work “hand in hand” with cities, townships and villages to come up with a solution for “guaranteed revenue replacement.”

“We are more than willing ― I think our reputation precedes us ― to work with our state legislators hand in hand to come up with viable solutions that … may reform property taxes without harming communities across the state,” he said.

Sterling Heights Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko said the legislation reduces the city’s revenue without a guarantee of what it will be replaced with. She said that in the future, the legislation could prevent the city from maintaining positions that it has promised residents it would maintain, including public safety roles.