For those concerned about sustainable energy, the news recently out of East Hampton Town Hall is a nice surprise. Officials and three private companies are racing to put together a proposal to be presented to the state Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PSEG Long Island, for large-scale solar installations at town-owned sites. Taken together, the project could produce on the order of 40 megawatts of electricity, enough to power as many as 8,000 houses. By selling power to the utility, the public-private partnership would be estimated to spin off annual income for the town — as much as $800,000 — through site rentals.

    For PSEG, the successor to the Long Island Power Authority, this kind of arrangement is good business sense. Solar installations stand to provide less-expensive electricity than fossil fuel, nuclear, or other sources. They also provide security through a redundancy of generating stations spread more widely across the grid.

    For East Hampton Town, the plan offers a way to generate income from unexpected and unused sites, such as roofs and portions of former landfills not suitable for much else. Other municipalities, corporations, and educational institutions have entered into similar arrangements with solar power companies with favorable results. Best of all,  these projects generally come with minimal, if any, costs to the property owners.

    For residents, additional town income would help avoid tax increases and cuts in services. East Hampton Town has a very tight budget, and every bit of income helps. Of importance as well would be satisfaction in knowing the community was taking a giant step toward a more responsible and environmentally conscious future.

    We hope this ambitious town undertaking will also help motivate homeowners and businesses to consider solar installations of their own. PSEG Long Island inherited LIPA’s renewable energy programs of rebates and incentives. With federal and state tax credits for installations, a homeowner’s out-of-pocket cost for a 5,000-kilowatt system might be under $9,000, with a payback period of as few as six years.

    Solar may not work in all locations, and the up-front cost may be out of range for many people, but with the town taking such a massive endeavor, residents can be proud that their government is looking to lead the way.

    It may be difficult for the powers-that-be in East Hampton Town Hall to recall in the depths of freezing winter the taxi mayhem of the past several high seasons. But time is a-wasting if something is to be done to bring the situation under control by summer. Complicating matters is the fact that meaningful regulation will require inter-government cooperation, including that of Suffolk County.

    Because much of the abuse comes from out-of-town cab operators taking advantage of people out for a night of fun, it may be tempting for local officials to give this low priority. That would be wrong. We should treat our visitors as we wish to be treated ourselves, and, as we know, there are those among us who also call cabs from time to time.

    Montauk was the center of much of the frustration last summer, with outrageous fares and other transgressions, such as cabbies taking up public parking spaces while sleeping off the preceding night’s rounds. However, the easternmost hamlet was hardly the only place where there was trouble. In one incident, for example, police were called in August to resolve a dispute about a promised $75 ride from Amagansett to Bridgehampton that suddenly doubled in price when the rider was already in the cab.

    Triple-digit fares are commonplace here, drawing cabbies like moths to flame to hang around likely spots, such as the Montauk bars. East Hampton Town took a stab at regulating taxis by starting a registry and trying to require that drivers have a local address. This may be better than nothing, but it falls short of protecting riders from unsafe rides and what you might call highway robbery. And since trips often cross town lines, East Hampton’s regulatory authority is by definition limited.

    This is where Suffolk, and perhaps the state, may have to step in. One solution might be for lawmakers to create an East End taxi commission of some kind, modeled on New York City’s. A new agency could help set safety and performance standards as well as regulate fares.

    Allowing the wild west taxi scene to continue is unacceptable. Reining it in will require leadership and the active involvement of several levels of government. This should begin immediately.

    Two numbers that may not seem related but have everything to do with each other are worth thinking about: $33 million and 2 percent. These are the sum now on hand in Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s re-election campaign war chest and the limit on tax-levy increases by local governments and school districts, which he steered into law. Both speak to his ambitions and likely attempt to be the Democratic presidential nominee at some point in the future.

    That wealthy donors support the popular governor is clear. According to a recent analysis by the New York Public Interest Group, $8 out of every $10 in the governor’s war chest has come from those contributing $10,000 or more, and 242 individuals and corporations have given him $40,000 or more. Just under 7 cents on the dollar in Mr. Cuomo’s political bank accounts has come from those contributing less than $1,000.

    Most officials here have accepted the 2-percent tax-increase cap as a fact of life, but it is nothing short of a revolution in two decimal places. Its power is substantial, both in terms of Mr. Cuomo’s political aspirations and the effect on local municipalties. By holding tax increases to 2 percent, or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, Albany found a way to help shrink the size of local taxing entities and to drive school cuts. The goal, as Mr. Cuomo hinted in his State of the State address, is to force further reductions through shared services and consolidation. The cost and proliferation of local governments, he said, were a “major structural problem,” and, by the way, a shot at attracting center-right campaign contributions.

    Local officials need to be wary that Mr. Cuomo sees them as a rung on his ladder to the White House. Here, where small taxing districts are plentiful, the impact of the governor’s revolution is already being felt.

    As opponents of a planned reduction in the local deer population rallied at Hook Mill in East Hampton Village on Saturday, a basic question hovered unasked: Just how their numbers were allowed to grow unchecked and why the government entity most responsible by law and tradition for wildlife management in New York State has been all but absent.

    The Department of Environmental Conservation is the state agency whose mission includes setting hunting seasons and limits and enforcing a range of related regulations. But its involvement in Long Island’s deer problem has been negligible. Its commissioner, Joe Martens, should answer for allowing the situation to reach a perceived crisis level, at least in the downstate region. Taking care of the state’s wildlife is the D.E.C.’s job, after all. Why it hasn’t in this regard must be examined.

    Without state leadership, eastern Long Island’s towns and villages have been forced to go it alone, undertaking patchwork studies and turning to the federal government for help. The East Hampton Town Department of Natural Resources, for example, has only four staff members; no one on the East Hampton Village staff can be considered a wildlife expert.

    Digging deeper, though, the fault for allowing the deer population to grow beyond safe limits cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the D.E.C. bureaucracy. Its portfolio is enormous, including hazardous waste, pollution, marine and freshwater resources, parks and campsites, mining, and hydraulic fracturing, or at least studying fracking’s potential harm. There are more than 1,900 D.E.C. facilities and 4.4 million acres of land under the agency’s control. And this is on a budget of just under $900 million for the current fiscal year — about the same as that allotted by the City of New York for environmental quality in its far-smaller geographic area. It is little surprise then that suburban deer management could have fallen through the cracks.

    In laying out this week the state budget for the coming year, Gov. Andrew Cuomo did not propose any significant increases for the D.E.C. This is unfortunate, as New York’s reputation as an environmental leader has slipped in recent decades as the challenges have risen. In reaction to the governor’s State of the State address earlier this month, the New York League of Conservation Voters complained about what it saw as a missed opportunity, given anticipated state surpluses.

    Albany must regain its leadership role on conservation and sensible, science-driven wildlife management, including for deer. If increasing funding to the D.E.C. is what it will take, all sides should be in support.

    What appear to be alarmingly optimistic projections and unfunded expenses are buried in the 2014 East Hampton Town budget. How the town deals with these stumbling blocks, which were left for the new town board by the previous administration, will be an early test. What is emerging is a picture of a budget that was fudged to make it appear balanced — hardly one that ex-Supervisor Bill Wilkinson would have left for himself had he expected to remain in office.

     One example of unlikely revenue is a probably impossible 21-percent increase in the fines and fees meted out by the Justice Court. No major changes in ordinance enforcement nor new hires have been announced that would support such an increase, and it is difficult to see how the current staff of four inspectors and a director could ramp up efforts enough to meet a projection that shows revenue rising by more than $200,000. Reality, it seems, is taking some of the shine off the Wilkinson financial miracle.  

    It is interesting to note, however, an initiative in the Town of Islip to revitalize its code and public safety enforcement, which was reported in Newsday earlier this month. It resulted in a huge jump in fines, swelling town coffers by $900,000. There, as in East Hampton, a substantial proportion of Justice Court cases concerned illegal, multiple housing.

    Part of the rise in fines had to do with a boost in the number of investigators and fire marshals, but part also was motivated by a willingness at the top for a more aggressive approach, including lots of fieldwork and close cooperation with police. Here, where obvious violations go unchecked for months, if not years, restoring faith in government and balancing the books would suggest that this is a tactic the town board should consider.  

    Another iffy item is $350,000 from an anticipated sale of a town-owned office suite. It appears on the books even though no contract has been inked.

    The town board has already considered the waste-disposal fees paid by homeowners, which are set to rise sharply in order to make up for what otherwise would be a six-digit shortfall in the sanitation budget.

    Such is the worrying state of finances at the outset of 2014.  These gaps and rosy projections also contribute to concern about the quality of the oversight that was supposed to come from the state comptroller’s office. As a condition of the town’s borrowing to cover McGintee-era deficits, the state was expected to pay more attention than it apparently has.    

    If there ever was a moment for the town’s volunteer budget and finance committee to sharpen its pencils it is now. Wedged between the state 2-percent tax cap and overstated revenue expectations, the East Hampton Town Board may find itself having to ask property owners to swallow tax hikes or to make very deep cuts in services next year. There will be hard work ahead, and leveling with the taxpayers about what is really going on will have to be high on the list of priorities.

    Even after they are gone from office, the previous administration in East Hampton Town Hall continues to cause problems and in at least one case — an expected jump in fees for waste disposal — it appears to be by design. But former Supervisor Bill Wilkinson et al. do not deserve all the blame for the new board’s haste to increase fees. Before doing so, it must take a close look at what appears to be a bloated Sanitation Department.

    In a meeting this month, town board members were alerted to a roughly $300,000 hole in the sanitation fund, which was left in place by their predecessors. The 2014 town budget, approved in November, included more income from permit-cost hikes at the town’s two transfer stations, but the former board neglected to vote in increases in the cost of permits. Instead, it has fallen to Supervisor Larry Cantwell and the Democratic majority on the new board to approve sure-to-be-unpopular increases or come up with the money otherwise if it cannot make equivalent cuts.

    What’s unfortunate about this is that the sanitation fund is more or less a closed box — the deficit left by the previous administration must be filled from within because there is little room in the budget, constrained as it is by the state’s 2-percent tax-levy cap. Mr. Cantwell has said improved recycling rates may help, but that effect would be limited and take time to be realized.

    Under the newest proposal, the cost for most residents would rise 15 percent, to $115 for a household’s first permit. Those without permits would see the $10 per-trip fee doubled. Commercial haulers would see their costs go up as well, but by less-sharp margins. Though these increases may seem minor to some of those pulling in near-six-figure salaries in Town Hall, they would have a disproportionate impact on the many so-called self-haulers, a group probably least able to easily absorb the expense.

     An alternative, particularly for those who take only modest amounts of household waste to the transfer stations as well as for short-term or seasonal visitors, may be seen in Southampton Town. There, residents are required to buy specific green-tinted garbage bags for their garbage. The drop-off cost is included in the price, and recyclables are accepted without cost. In East Hampton on the other hand, residents must buy permits even if they take only glass, cardboard, and aluminum to the dump.

    One immediate advantage of the Southampton model is that because residents have to buy the bags, they almost instantly become frugal about their waste, producing less, compressing what they absolutely have to throw away into the smallest possible volume, and recycling more. It is a far more progressive and cost-efficient method than East Hampton’s.

    While East Hampton officials are at it, they also should take a close look at how Southampton runs its waste-disposal efforts. Excluding debt costs for both towns, East Hampton spends more than $1 million more a year on disposal even though Southampton has more than twice the population. Furthermore, Southampton Town has four transfer stations to East Hampton’s two, and two of Southampton’s four are open seven days a week; both of East Hampton’s are closed on Wednesdays.

    As for the number of employees, the disparity is glaring: Despite a larger operation, Southampton has fewer, 13 to East Hampton’s 19, and none makes more than $100,000 a year in combined salary and benefits as do two in East Hampton. Want more? The East Hampton Sanitation Department’s annual electric bill is more than twice Southampton’s. Why? Who knows, but this is among the myriad questions town officials should ask well before they rush to stick it to residents in the form of higher fees.

    The good news in a recent New York Times Science section story about sea level rise is that Montauk’s tide records lag behind those in places along the eastern United States coastline that are becoming inundated the fastest. The bad news is that the advantage is not by much. According to the numbers, the waters have come up about a foot every 100 years and are coming faster, with the greatest increases in the mid-Atlantic states. This means that the landward migration of the shoreline will continue unabated here, and even get faster. Property owners and local officials who ignore this are simply kidding themselves.

    In December, the Eastern Long Island Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group, issued a statement supporting major changes along the Montauk oceanfront. It called for one of the Army Corps of Engineers options: rebuilding protective dunes after removing several motels and residences that are now in harm’s way. This echoed a view expressed on this page earlier in 2013 to the effect that think-big solutions were the best choice.

    Pumping sand in front of exposed properties at this late stage would be a temporary solution at best and a waste of both money and precious time before a better one is at hand. Rather than outright property condemnation, however, town and federal officials should consider more creative redevelopment of the seaward edge of downtown Montauk, perhaps granting motel owners air rights over existing retail parcels or the use of nearby lots that are vacant or underutilized.

    Meanwhile, away from the most obvious at-risk spots, shoreline restoration projects continue. These, too, must be re-evaluated and incentives found to coax property owners into long-term decisions. East Hampton Town needs to rethink fast how it interacts with the waters that surround us. The sea will not wait while policymakers wonder what to do.

    A practice that East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell described at the first meeting of his tenure would be a simple fix to a fundamental problem of the previous administration, which frequently added resolutions on both routine and controversial matters to meeting agendas at the last minute and without public notice.

    Some of the more notable instances of this were several airport matters, scheduling a hearing for zoning changes at the behest of the Amagansett 555 developers, selling town land to a Montauk motel owner, and an apparently punitive audit of the town’s Human Resources Department.

    Also troublesome was the previous town leadership’s withholding of meeting agendas entirely — with the unfortunate exception of a private email sent to key sympathizers — until moments before meetings were to convene. Mr. Cantwell has said he will see that agendas are circulated at least two days before each meeting and work session.

    State open meetings law requires only that meetings be announced in advance so that members of the public can attend if they so choose. The law is also specific about what constitutes a meeting and what records must be kept, but it has little to say on the subject of agendas. It is clear, however, that prior distribution of a list of subjects to be covered is both standard practice and good government. A two-day rule, such as Mr. Cantwell has proposed, would keep interested parties — and minority party members — in the loop. This shift toward a more open Town Hall is to be commended.

    A corollary is that the board should decline to hear requests for mass gathering permits that do not meet the required application time frame. Those planning large events, which have in some cases proved controversial, should be expected to provide materials in a timely manner; they should be aware that they can no longer be the beneficiaries of limited scrutiny by town officials and the public, which occurred when late requests were considered. If there is time to plan a big party, there is time to get an early okay.

    New York Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Tim Bishop are among a bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers pushing for a second round of reform of the recently reformed National Flood Insurance Program. Their call for action comes as an increasing number of property owners here and around the country have become aware of steep increases in their premiums, the result of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which sought to answer the program’s longstanding deficit. Debate in the Senate on a new Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act is expected this week. From the perspective of many on the East End of Long Island, change is necessary.

    The intention of the authors of the earlier reform of federal flood insurance was good: Since Hurricane Katrina, the program had accumulated a deficit as large as $25 billion. Biggert-Waters was supposed to address that by phasing in premium hikes to reflect actual risks and reduce the subsidy from American taxpayers at large, which kept premiums low. In the new math, the safer a property from flood damage, the lower the cost. The reverse was applied to the most at-risk properties, as set out on federal maps.

    As things unfolded, however, the increases soared beyond belief — as much as 1,000 percent in some cases; in isolated examples rates were said to be leaping from $4,000 a year to more than $40,000. As a result, real estate deals have been jeopardized or called off. Outrage is mounting.

    There is a hidden risk to the federal program if prices rise to the point that some property owners decide to drop coverage. In that scenario, Congress might well be inclined to spend billions following the next major flood or hurricane to pay for uninsured losses. It is interesting to note that the $50 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package is just about double the accumulated deficit of the entire program over its nearly four decades of existence.

    Reducing taxpayer subsidies for flood insurance is necessary and reasonable. Doing so without destroying real estate markets or pricing some people out of their homes is reasonable too. The measures outlined in the proposed affordability act attempt to strike that balance and deserve swift passage.

    Forget the polar vortex, there’s a word for the weather we have been having this week and it’s — drumroll, please — winter.

    If there is one thing old iceboaters can tell you, the South Fork usually experiences a cold snap right around the second week of January, and only a few years ago, relatively speaking, there would be weeks of hard-water sailing even on Three Mile Harbor. And, in what might be termed real winters a number of decades back, you could drive a car to Gardiner’s Island on the frozen bay if you were especially brave, or foolhardy. This winter? Feh. It’s supposed to hit the 40s by Saturday.

    For all the talk of sub-freezing temperatures and good-intentioned suggestions to “stay warm,” this winter’s story has not been one of cold but rather how mild it has been. The National Climate Data Center, a government weather records agency, has reported that there have been more than four times as many record high temperatures than record lows for the 30 days that ended on Sunday. For example, Baltimore had its warmest winter day ever on Dec. 22, when it reached 62 degrees.

    Whether these records can be linked to human-caused climate change is beside the point. The planet is getting warmer, no doubt about it. Face-numbing days like we’ve seen this week are difficult to cope with, but they are becoming fewer and further between, and that is the real and important story. Just ask any old iceboater.