BERKELEY -- The Berkeley City Council took the first steps last week toward retooling the city's electoral system, which city officials have criticized as costly and inhibitive of voter turnout.

"The current system is confusing," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates. "There's a real problem now and we need to solve it."

Following three council straw polls, Bates directed City Clerk Sherry Kelly to draft two measures for the March ballot that would alter the city's runoff electoral system and make it more difficult for candidates to enter city races. The measures will likely be approved by the council next month and will require majority support from voters.

One change likely slated for the March ballot will move the date for city runoff elections to February. Under the current system, if no city council, mayoral or city auditor candidate receives 45 percent of the vote at the city's November election, the top two candidates face a new election four weeks later.

But because election materials take as many as 120 days to purchase and receive, the Berkeley city clerk has been forced to predict the need for a runoff election weeks before votes are cast. This could lead to thousands of wasted dollars if no runoff is needed, Kelly said.

A runoff election can cost as much as $275,000 and typically sees a 50 percent reduction in voter turnout.

The council also supported lowering the runoff threshold to 40 percent of the vote, making the need for a runoff election less likely.

Although most council members supported the change, it faced some criticism.

Extending the date of runoff elections will force possibly unwanted three-month extended lame-duck periods on exiting council members, Councilwoman Betty Olds said.

The changes will extend the campaigning time and money needed from candidates by three months. Putting in that effort for two elections will place a heavy psychological burden on candidates involved, said Councilmember Gordon Wozniak.

The council also rejected a proposal to include an instant runoff voting system in lieu of the current runoff process, despite public appeals in favor of it and vocal support from some council members.

In its final decision, the council supported changing the requirements for candidacy in a city election, making it more difficult for people to run.

City council candidates would be required to pay $150 to run for office, mayoral candidates would face a $300 requirement and other citywide positions would require a $200 filing fee. The council supported implementing exemptions for low-income candidates, as well as a clause allowing signatures to take the place of the fees.

The council will reconsider placing the instant runoff voting system on the November ballot at a meeting next May.

The instant runoff system allows voters to rank their candidate preferences rather than choose only one candidate. It would thus eliminate the need for a separate runoff election.

Proponents say it offers third-party candidates a better chance of victory, increasing voter interest and turnout.

But critics of the instant runoff system challenged claims it would be significantly cheaper and quicker than alternative voting systems.

"Under instant runoff voting, it still takes three to four weeks to certify elections," Wozniak said. "There's nothing instant about it and nothing cheap."

Instant runoff could also increase the difficulty in completing a ballot, Wozniak said, noting an instant runoff at the recent recall election would have required voters to rank all 135 gubernatorial candidates.