The first roll in a bid to finally bring a casino to Chicago has come up snake eyes.

Financing for any one of five proposed casino sites studied on the South and West sides is “not feasible,” because of an “onerous” tax structure established by the Illinois General Assembly, a consultant hired by the Illinois Gaming Board has concluded.

In a highly anticipated report expected to set the stage for a fix during the General Assembly’s fall veto session, Union Gaming Analytics concluded that a Chicago casino “has the potential to become the highest grossing casino” in Illinois — “significantly higher” than the state-leading Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, which generated $441.8 million last year — but only if officials lighten the tax burden on developers.

It’s a concern Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she long saw coming, but she insisted the city is far from folding on the gambling den that has eluded city and state leaders for decades.

“These were issues we flagged during the process,” Lightfoot said of the tax structure. “What I look forward to is working with the governor and legislative leaders to roll up our sleeves and work hard on a bill that gets it right.”

How profitable would a casino be at each site? Not much, if at all, thanks to a heavy load of taxes and fees, according to a consultant’s report. Click on each location for the financial estimates of what a casino would be making at each site in its fifth year of operation there. A casino would be marginally profitable at four of the sites, well below industry averages, and lose money at the fifth, the consultant estimates.

But a key suburban lawmaker who helped draft Illinois’ massive gambling expansion law — which allows for a 4,000-gaming position Chicago mega-casino that dwarfs any other in the state — slammed the city’s proposed sites and the study process, saying that altering the tax structure only helps developers.

“You have to see what location is the most profitable for a casino, and you use the money they make from the profits” to redevelop “a blighted area” elsewhere, said state Sen. Terry Link, D-Vernon Hills. “The five locations mentioned would not maximize the profitability at all, in my mind.”

The study found the former Michael Reese Hospital location at 31st and Cottage Grove would be the most profitable of the five sites suggested by Lightfoot’s office — locations the mayor acknowledged were only “placeholders” for the study to get a grasp of the tax situation.

The Reese site could rake in an estimated $806 million after five years in operation, at razor-thin profit margins around 3%, the study found.

But the Las Vegas consulting firm concluded that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the 33.3% privilege tax on adjusted gross receipts, or the money casinos dish out paying winners. That’s on top of the existing tax structure in place for all state casinos, not to mention upwards of $135 million in up-front licensing fees.

The bottom line is that the effective tax rate for a Chicago casino is “approximately 72%,” the consultant said.

And with a “reconciliation fee” due in three years equal to 75% of the casino’s most lucrative 12-month span — a colossal $502.6 million in the Reese scenario — it “would wipe out any profits generated for many years, if not decades.”

The four other sites shot down in the report include:

Pershing Road and State Street, which the consultant estimated would pull in $782 million in revenue annually five years after launching;

Roosevelt Road and Kostner Avenue, which could make $698 million;

the Harborside International Golf Center area near 111th and the Bishop Ford Freeway, which could make $690 million;

and the former U.S. Steel parcel at 80th Street and Lake Shore Drive, which could make $653 million.

Lightfoot said settling on a location is still a ways off and that a downtown site could be considered, as urged in the study.

“There’s no location or combination of amenities that makes this deal one that can actually get financed,” the mayor said.

Union Gaming concluded “only a centrally-located casino that is in close proximity to high-quality hotels and other notable tourist attractions” would be able to “meaningfully penetrate the robust tourism trends” in Chicago.

Such a “tourist-centric” location could rack up $1.15 billion annually five years after launch.

A downtown site has always made the most financial sense, since the goal is to raise as much money as possible for police and fire pensions and a city budget shortfall that, Lightfoot is prepared to argue, is $1 billion-plus.

But convention and tourism officials have long feared that a casino located too close to McCormick Place would draw patrons off the convention floor and into the casino.

The consultant also revisited the idea that it could be feasible for the city to own the casino and have a company manage it.

Like her predecessors, Lightfoot played an opening hand during Springfield negotiations that included a city-owned casino. But she didn’t hold out for it and ultimately agreed to accept a one-third share, far less than the 50 percent share demanded by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Lightfoot is a former federal prosecutor who owes her landslide election to the still-unfolding federal corruption scandal that threatens to bring down Ald. Edward Burke (14th).

She knew that holding out for a Chicago-owned casino at a time when the City Council was bracing for the biggest scandal in its sordid history would likely have been a deal breaker and could be if she brings it up again.

“Obviously, that was something that we asked for. But I think we’re gonna work within the construct that we have just to make sure that we get the tax structure right,” the mayor said Tuesday.

Link dismissed the idea: “Why would we give them the option of having it city-owned if they even admit they can’t bond out?” he said.

The feasibility study was the first step toward a Chicago casino as spelled out in the massive gambling expansion bill passed earlier this summer in Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s $45 billion capital plan.

The governor’s office said they don’t expect the study’s findings to “significantly impact” the six-year plan.

At a Springfield bill signing, Pritzker picked out the seemingly one positive note highlighted in the study: the “significant” revenue potential.

“It’s important for all of us to focus on what’s best about this, which is it’ll bring in — when we get all of those features to bear from the General Assembly, from the gaming board, from the mayor — that we’ll be able to bring jobs to the city of Chicago, as well as revenue, importantly, for the city of Chicago as well as to the state of Illinois.”

Pritzker said he’s “very confident” issues will be resolved.

“We all want it to succeed,” the governor said.

The mayor’s office now has 90 days to huddle with lawmakers in Springfield about potential changes that could be made to the law during the October veto session.

Supporters initially said a Chicago casino could be up and running as early as late 2020. State Rep. Bob Rita, D-Blue Island — another key statehouse player in gaming talks — downplayed the possibility the study would significantly alter that timeline.

“We need some time to analyze this, but the process is playing out a lot like we anticipated,” Rita said.

Lightfoot suggested Rita and Link “didn’t quite appreciate how difficult it would be to get a casino financed.

Despite consternation over the study, Link said he believes “everything can be resolved when people sit down and try to resolve it.”

Samir Mayekar, deputy mayor for economic and neighborhood development, said City Hall has no plans to recommend a specific remedy for the “onerous” tax structure.

Instead, the mayor will “respect the process” by waiting for the gaming board to make those suggestions within 90 days, as required by law, he said.

Asked why she signed off on a structure she knew wouldn’t work, Lightfoot said “the legislative process is one of compromise.”

The consultant’s study appears to give Lightfoot the political cover she needs to choose a casino site closer to the downtown area. But Mayekar refused to go that far.

“This report talks about how none of the sites — even if you were to include the Central Business District — would be financeable,” he said.

Asked whether the sites were chosen as political cover, Link said, “They might have done that, but it skewed the report.”

The study does get Lightfoot off the hook with Ald. Sophia King (4th) — who was dead set against putting a Chicago casino at the Reese site — and Pat Dowell (3rd), who prefers a Pete’s Fresh Market to a casino on the site in her ward at Pershing and State.

In addition to the convention industry, Lightfoot — if she ends up pushing a downtown site — also risks alienating City Council allies such as Ald. Susan Sadlowski-Garza (10th), who continues to beat the drum for the Harborside site.

City Hall also released initial results of an online survey asking Chicagoans to weigh in on their site preferences.

Thirty-six percent of the roughly 10,000 people surveyed favor a site near downtown, while 32% prefer a location that would “generate new development.”

That was followed by “proximity” to public transportation (21% ), near tourists (19%), near other entertainment venues and near existing hotels (15% apiece).

Read the Chicago casino feasibility study: