As Missouri voters head to the polls, residents will decide whether or not they will place their bets on a new casino on the Lake of the Ozarks.

Amendment 5 seeks to add a casino on the Osage River near Bagnell Dam. Under current state law, Missouri’s 13 casinos must be located along the Mississippi River or the Missouri River.

According to documents, the initiative petition would amend the Missouri Constitution, adding the Osage River to the list of permitted sites. Additionally, if approved, Amendment 5 would override current state law to distribute a 14th casino license.

Officials said all revenue generated by the state’s gaming tax, which is expected to total about $14.4 million annually, will go toward early childhood literacy efforts. Supporters of Amendment 5, including Lake Ozark Mayor Dennis Newberry, have pointed to the possible financial benefits the casino could bring.

“It would certainly give the city of Lake Ozark the boost it needs to generate revenue,” Newberry said.

According to Newberry, the city brings in a little more than $8 million a year. Meanwhile, members of the Osage River Gaming and Convention Committee, the proposal’s main supporters, estimated the casino would add about $2.5 million each year to the city’s bottom line.

“If we want our roads and our sewer and our water and our police protection and our fire departments, all of those services to be adequately funded, Proposition 5 is a necessity,” Newberry said.

He argued that a casino would diversify tourism, which is one of the lake’s most important sources of revenue.

“I would say there’s no better place in the state of Missouri for a casino,” Newberry said. “Missouri’s second largest industry is tourism. If we want to remain competitive with surrounding states, we need Proposition 5 to pass.”

According to Newberry, various groups have built condominiums in place of local businesses at the lake in recent years. He said that in turn led to a decline in city revenue because the new facilities did not generate sales tax.

“The developers who bought these family properties have always demolished them and built condos on these properties,” Newberry said. “A tourist town relies heavily on sales tax for revenue, and so we’ve lost a ton of revenue here over the last 40 years because of that.”

However, some residents opposed to Amendment 5 aren’t convinced a casino would be the answer. After living in the area for more than 40 years, retired business owner Joe Roeger is concerned about the possibility of a casino.

“Economically, we don’t think it makes sense here,” Roeger said.

He said he fears local businesses won’t be able to keep up if a casino moves in.

“It’s hard for mom-and-pop and existing restaurants to compete,” Roeger said. “If you can buy a subsidized steak for $5 less at a casino, that’s going to hurt local restaurants.”

Although the proposed plans also call for adding a hotel, convention center and other amenities, in addition to the casino, Roeger said he was skeptical.

“We’re somewhat doubtful that we’ll be able to see all the spectacular things they’re talking about,” Roeger said. “They say it will bring a lot of people here, but we don’t believe it.”

Newberry argued that officials estimate the casino is expected to create about 500 construction jobs and another 700 to 800 permanent jobs.

“It would provide year-round employment,” Newberry said. “In our market, a lot of people only work part of the year because during the winter months there are no tourists here that would allow businesses to stay open.”

Opponents said local businesses were struggling to handle the workforce on the lake.

“We have a hard time finding human resources here anyway,” Roeger said. “They’re just going to take our workforce and take the people that are currently here and benefiting from the economy that we’ve built.”

The proposal needs a simple statewide majority to pass.