Runoff elections in City Council races are rare – but maybe not for long.

A pair of Sioux Falls City Councilors nearing the ends of their terms plan to ask their colleagues to sign off on an ordinance change requiring council candidates achieve a majority of votes before claiming victory.

Right now, a council candidate needs to get just 34 percent of a vote and exceed their competitions’ total to earn a spot at Carnegie Town Hall. That’s called a “plurality” in technical terms, and it’s different than the majority – 50 percent plus one vote – necessary to be victorious in mayoral races.

Sioux Falls politics:PACs turn attention to Sioux Falls mayor's race as field fills out

“There’s no good reason, none that I can think of that are legitimate to not have the council races as important and meaningful as the mayor’s race,” Councilor Rex Rolfing said Thursday. “That means a majority, not a plurality.”

Rolfing said that later this month when the City Clerk’s Office brings a house-keeping ordinance update to the City Council he will offer an amendment to establish a majority requirement in City Council races. And Councilor Michelle Erpenbach has agreed to second the motion when it’s made, he said.

If Rolfing’s efforts are successful, it all but guarantees runoff elections in council races with more than two candidates. For instance, when Councilor Theresa Stehly earned her victory in April 2014 over two competitors, even though she won decidedly, she had fewer than 50 percent of the vote and would have moved onto a runoff election with the runner-up. Councilors Pat Starr and Greg Neitzert’s races would have also required runoffs.

City Clerk Tom Greco said since 2000, there’s been three instances where a Council race – both district and at-large – ended up needing a secondary runoff election to determine a winner. Add in mayoral races, and there have been four runoff elections since 2000.

If a majority requirement had been in place, 10 additional contests would have been subject to runoffs during the same time frame, resulting in one additional runoff election.

More:City Council cuts travel budget in response to sales tax slowdown

And those don’t happen without added expenses for Greco’s office.

“If there were to be a runoff, … the additional costs would be $80,000,” he said, adding that the city budgets for runoff elections during election years.

Councilor Starr said the budget implications of holding more frequent runoff elections don’t bother him because “there’s a cost to democracy.” But he’s worried adding another hurdle for a candidate to clear could hinder grassroots campaign that don’t have deep-pocketed campaign contributors.

“It’s become more and more expensive to serve on the Council and this doesn’t do anything to make it easier,” Starr said, referring to the need to extend a campaign an additional three weeks before a runoff is held. “For grassroots-type candidates, it would make it a lot more difficult to win.”