Cr Andrew Noone said he would contact KiwiRail staff to confirm the bridge would not be removed, and expected the findings of a council working party formed last week would eventually lead to the council taking ownership of the bridge.
The bridge - believed to be one of the last in New Zealand to feature an Edwardian lattice-truss design - crosses the main railway line at Ravensbourne but has been closed since August 2009 pending repairs worth $274,000 to make it safe.
The work had been delayed amid wrangling over whether the city council, Otago Regional Council or KiwiRail owned the bridge.
Concerns were voiced last week the bridge could be removed by KiwiRail, after councillors at an infrastructure services committee meeting voted not to accept responsibility for it - and the repair bill - for the time being.
Instead, they voted to establish a new working party, chaired by Cr Noone, to investigate ownership issues and report back.
That prompted a disagreement between KiwiRail staff, who believed the council already owned the bridge, and council staff, who insisted they did not.
Yesterday, Cr Noone, also chairman of the infrastructure committee, told the Otago Daily Times it was his personal view the council already owned the bridge, before last week's vote.
The council had clearly indicated its intention to take over ownership of the bridge when it signed a deed of grant in 2007, confirming access across KiwiRail land to the bridge, with KiwiRail staff.
"That was the intention from the word go. If every box hasn't been ticked ... that may well be able to be fleshed out by this working party.
"Where it is along that process I don't personally know, but all I'm saying is I feel the obligation of the city to take on the asset was pretty clear early on.
"Unless they [the council working party] can prove otherwise, it is a council asset," he said.
The working party had been expected to report back to the committee's next meeting on March 15, but might take longer to investigate options for the bridge's future use, he said.
"There's probably more than just the ownership issues. We really need to nail down what actually needs to be done to make it pedestrian-safe again.
"We probably need to make sure those figures [the $274,000 repair bill] are real, and we also probably need to consider what other possibilities are there to retain the structure," he said.
One option could be "not actually having it there as a functional bridge but having it there as a viewable structure", he said.
"That's something the working party needs to consider."
