Note: The following column was published by the Lapeer County Press on Saturday, March 7:

Across our community, from kitchen table conversations to town halls, there’s no mistaking that residents are clamoring for property tax relief. Families, seniors, and small business owners alike are feeling the financial strain and want meaningful action. I hear those concerns clearly, and I share them. At the same time, responsible leadership requires careful review.

It’s clear that changes to Michigan’s property taxes are at the forefront of political minds, with officials on both sides of the aisle publicly proposing solutions. The governor shared her ideas to lower property taxes during her State of the State address, and our Speaker of the House has proposed eliminating state property taxes completely.

Home ownership has been no exception to the rising costs Michiganders have faced in recent years. The median age of first-time homebuyers in the U.S. rose to 40 last year old. According to a recent study in Newsweek, more than 20% of renters under 40 do not plan to buy a home or are unsure if they ever will.

Property tax reform can help ease the financial burden of Michigan homeownership, but my colleagues and I are also thoughtfully considering what must be done to ensure lost revenues do not disrupt other areas of people’s lives and livelihoods.

The Speaker’s plan proposed in the House would eliminate property taxes collected by the state and provide monthly electric bill savings, potentially cutting Michigan household expenses by an estimated $1,100 every year. Specifically, the plan would eliminate the six-mill state education tax on property. Average homeowners would pay roughly 14% less in overall property taxes, leaving more money to help pay for groceries, utility bills and other household expenses. This plan would also eliminate the real estate transfer tax and fix the “pop-up” tax that can cause large property taxes increases for new homeowners.

While I’m excited to see plans for property tax savings taking shape, I am keenly aware that we must consider how the state will make up for these lost revenues to ensure our schools and local communities will not have to face major budget cuts.

While nothing has been formally introduced yet, one solution proposed by the House Speaker would replace the reduced property tax revenue with broader sales taxes on certain services that are currently untaxed. The examples he has cited include taxing services such as limousines, marinas, resorts, travel agencies, and more. Everyday services people depend on, such as haircuts, childcare, car repairs, healthcare, legal services, lawn care and others would not fall under these taxes. Shifting taxes only moves the tax burden to someone else.

While this would make up more than $4 billion annually, we must consider the impact that these taxes could have on job providers and employees in these Michigan industries. If taxes on industries go up, employers may look to other states with more friendly policies.

Another proposed solution would be to simply reduce spending. State spending has increased by almost 40% since the governor took office. Even with House Republicans’ successful efforts to rein in spending, the budget for the current fiscal year was still over $80 billion, and the governor’s most recent budget proposal approached $90 billion. The bottom line — in order to responsibly return money to taxpayers, the state must spend less.

The plans on the table are intriguing, and I’m optimistic for taxpayers. With that said, the finalized plan must include a real solution for the long-term financial impact on affordability and mandatory services as well as keeping jobs in our community — before moving forward with a plan. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I won’t support any plan that doesn’t.