Mr Vinsen said authorised sites were aimed at gaining control over design and placement of billboards.
"The sites have become well known by the public as places to look for community information on what's happening in our district," he said.
"And I'm pleased to note that the policing of these signs has been more rigorous and we no longer see poorly designed billboards or messages that are well past their dateline."
The original decision to make those sites off limits to billboards was "an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction", he said.
"It came straight after an election. Some councillors felt they had had to spend too much to get elected and somehow thought that they would no longer need to incur the cost of billboards.
"Some didn't spend anything to get elected and felt that by banning the sites for billboards somehow the playing field would be levelled.
"So the argument was dressed up in red herring arguments of affordability, equity and clutter," he said.
Despite the ban, there were not fewer election signs, Mr Vinsen said. "They're just in different places and the council - and ratepayers - no longer gets the $35 fee.
" So nothing has been gained."
Under current policy, candidates had to find suitable sites on private property for their billboards.
"We even have to pay for prime sites where no market existed before. But I see election signs as an expression of our community energy and democracy, not unnecessary clutter.
"No other town has a ban like this, because it doesn't make sense," he said.
Mrs Baker-Hogan said she supported having the policy revisited and certainly before the pending byelection. "We should encourage democracy, and council sites for election hoardings are part of that democratic process."
Ms Duncan said she leaned towards a more open policy, and Mr Wills said he believed the existing policy gave a significant advantage to incumbent councillors.