“I’m relieved and grateful for the Assembly’s actions,” Mayor Beverly Johnson told local scribe Jeff Mitchell, who penned this piece on the thwarted controversy for the Sacramento Bee. “The county was dead serious about the bridge situation. For now, it looks like a crisis has been averted.”

County officials had said that without the money, they’d have to leave the Park Street, High Street and Fruitvale bridges up at night, or risk huge fines from the Coast Guard (because ships, apparently, have the right of way). Their solution to the problem? More money from us.

Estimates for keeping the bridges staffed run from $1.9 million to $2.5 million a year (depending on who you ask), some of which may or may not be paid by us already. The bridges take about 85,000 vehicle trips per day, Mitchell reports.

Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant had previously dismissed the county’s threats as a “trial balloon” to seek more money from the city, and Vice Mayor Doug deHaan had said the threat had been raised in the past. But Johnson was concerned they were far more serious.

Meanwhile, the state is pressing forward with plans to take property tax money and redevelopment funds from counties and cities. That’ll cost us over $2 million in property tax money this year (though it’ll have to be repaid in three years, with interest) and some $5.4 million in redevelopment funds this year and next.

We should have a fix on how those problems will be solved when the proposed budget comes out, later this week, and the council will take a look at that budget at a special meeting at 7 p.m. Monday. Stay tuned.

If that plan is enacted, Alameda County could also lose money, which could have a potentially bigger impact on the Island: The closure of the drawbridges that connect us to the rest of civilization. Apparently the bridges would operational during the day – after all this earthquake retrofit work is done, anyway – and then would be left up at night.

The Chronicle’s Michael Cabanatuan reports that the county-run bridges would have to be left in the up position if closed, because they could face millions in fines otherwise.

“We can’t afford those fines, so we would have to find other sources of money, or keep the bridges open – that is, in the up position,” the county’s public works director, Daniel Woldesenbet, told the Chron. “And some of the bridges carry 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a day.”

Without the bridges, we’d only have the Webster and Posey tubes to rely on to get on and off the Island, and the ferry.

If the state takes the money, Alameda County would be out $36 million this coming year.

But Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant dismissed the suggestion that the bridges might be closed as little more than a bit of nifty political theater intended to get more money from the city.

“Obviously this was a trial balloon, and it was there to get the necessary reaction. It’s highly unlikely they would do that,” she told the City Council on Tuesday. “They want us to share in the expenses (of operating the bridges), and it’s just not possible.”

Vice Mayor Doug deHaan said a similar suggestion was floated in 1994, but that other solutions to the problem were found.

Their remarks came as the council opted to join the League of California Cities in exploring a lawsuit that would challenge the constitutionality of the state’s taking the gas tax money for its own budget-balancing use. Voters decided to amend the state constitution to require the use of gas tax funds for road and transit improvements effective July 1, 2003.

The mayors Alameda County’s cities have also banded together to demand that the state reconsider proposals to take the gas tax money and property tax funds totaling $42 million for the county (though that appears to, for the moment, be off the table).