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

Amendment 5stands to add a casino on the Osage River, near the Bagnell Dam. Under current state law, Missouri’s13 casinos must be located along the Mississippi River or Missouri River.

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

Officials stated allrevenue generated from the state’s gaming tax, which is projected to total about $14.4 million per year, will go towards early childhood literacy efforts. Those in favor of Amendment 5, including mayor of Lake Ozark Dennis Newberry, pointed to possible financial benefits the casino could bring.

“It would certainly give the city of Lake Ozark the shot in the arm it needs for revenue,” Newberry said.

According to Newberry, the city brings in a little over $8 million annually. Meanwhile, members of the Osage River Gaming & Convention Committee–the proposition’s main backers–estimated the casino would add about $2.5 million each year to the city’s bottom line.

“If we’re going to expect our roads, sewer and water, police protection and fire–all of these services to be adequately funded, Prop 5 is a necessity,” Newberry said.

He argueda casino would diversify tourism, which is one of the lake’s most significant revenue sources.

“I would argue that there isn’t a 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 our surrounding states, we need Prop 5 to pass.”

According to Newberry, various groups have built condominiums in place of local businesses at the lake in recent years. He said this in turn has caused the city’s revenue to take a hit, as the new facilities don’t generate sales tax.

“The developers that have purchased those mom-and-pop properties, have historically torn those down and built condos on those properties,” Newberry said. “A tourism city relies on sales tax largely for its revenue, and so we’ve lost a ton of revenue here over the last 40 years due to that.”

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

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

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

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

While proposed plans also outline the addition of a hotel, convention center and other amenities–on top of the casino–Roeger said he is skeptical.

“We somewhat doubt that we’re going to see all the spectacular things that they talk about,” Roeger said. “They say that it will bring lots of folks down here, but we don’t believe that.”

Newberry argued officials estimate the casino is projected to add about 500 construction jobs, and another 700-800 permanent jobs.

“It would provide year-round employment,” Newberry said. “In our market, a lot of people are only employed for just a portion of the year because in the winter months there aren’t the tourists here that will allow businesses to stay open.”

Opponents said local businesses struggle with manpower at the lake as it is.

“We have trouble finding human resources down here anyways,” Roeger said. “They’re just going to take our workforce and take the folks that are currently down here that are enjoying the economy that we built.”

The proposal needs a simple majority, state-wide in order to pass.