"What the hell is this?" asked Mrs. Pruchniewski, a former high school teacher. "I have never gotten this before."

Mrs. Pruchniewski was just one of dozens of Annapolitans who sounded like they were ready to dump tea on their sidewalks to protest what they said was taxation without representation.

It turns out the fee - $25 for residential property, $150 for non-residential properties - is to go to a new sidewalk fund created to pay for construction, repair and maintenance of city-owned sidewalks, and for inspection of non-city built sidewalks.

Mrs. Pruchniewski was especially shocked at the fee, since she lives in the private community of Painters Hill off Hilltop Lane, and pays $134 a month to have the grounds and sidewalks maintained.

"There was no publicity, no warning, no letter (with the bill) and no apology," Mrs. Pruchniewski said. "This is just ridiculous."

Diane Mason, 65 and a lifelong resident of Eastport, also was shocked about the new fee.

"I am really upset about this," she said. "There are people on fixed incomes who can't even afford medicine - I think it is crap," she said.

Scott Bowling, who lives on Fairfax Road, said there are no sidewalks in front of his house, and yet he must pay $25.

"They should be ashamed of passing this fee during tight economic times," said Mr. Bowling, who added that any repairs to sidewalks "absolutely" should be covered by the property taxes Annapolis residents already pay.

The mayor's office didn't know how many of the bills had been sent out, but Mr. Bowling, an investment banker, estimated that the IOUs sent out on Monday totaled about $500,000.

Citizen outrage has City Hall admitting that better public relations might have helped smooth things out.

"One of the things missing in this … was better education; a big part of what is going on has people opening (the bill) and saying 'What the hell is this,'" said Ray Weaver, a spokesman for Mayor Ellen O. Moyer, the fee's original sponsor.

Genessee Street resident Winterson Hittle asked "What will be the next surprise we get in the mail - a bill for the air we breathe?"

"This seems like the nuclear explosion that will end the mayor," Mr. Hittle said, noting that Ms. Moyer has had a number of public relations problems in recent months, especially in handling the Market House renovation and lease.

When Mrs. Pruchniewski called City Hall about the bill, she was told to call her alderman, David Cordle.

Mr. Cordle voted in favor of the fee, but yesterday said he will work to repeal or delay collection of the fee.

Two other aldermen, Republicans Fred Paone of Ward 2 and Julie Stankivic of Ward 6, also said they will work to repeal the fee.

Ms. Stankivic was the only alderman to vote against the measure when it came up in October. Mr. Paone was not yet on the council.

Mr. Paone said he was surprised to receive a bill on Monday.

"I don't have a sidewalk, and I was as surprised as anybody," he said.

He also noted that 90 percent of residents of Ward 2, for example, don't have sidewalks.

"Why should they be saddled with this fee?" he said.

The fee, Mr. Cordle noted, is charged to every property owner whether they have a sidewalk or not.

Although he said yesterday he'll work to repeal the fee, Mr. Cordle still was defending its merits.

He said the fund will help property owners because they will no longer be required to foot the cost of repairing sidewalks.

"We need not to have a knee-jerk reaction to it," said Mr. Cordle, who is famous for his opposition to taxes and fees.

But Ms. Stankivic stuck to the same arguments she said she made in October.

"It is socialism," Ms. Stankivic, an Independent who recently switched to Republican, said of the fee yesterday.

More importantly than the fee, Ms. Stankivic said, citizens should learn a valuable lesson from this experience - pay attention to what government is doing.

The bill was introduced in early 2007 and passed the City Council in October, she said.

The process was completely open, but no one noticed.

"People always get upset after the fact because they are not paying attention," Ms. Stankivic said.

"Why didn't you come to the hearing," she said to all who hate the fee as much as she does.

Alderman Ross Arnett, D-Ward 8, defended the fee as a good deal for homeowners.

Since levying the charge, the city now has a responsibility for repairing sidewalks, Mr. Arnett said.

He recalled having to perform a $1,000 repair on the sidewalk in front of his Eastport home. He ended up doing the work himself, to save money. But, he said, it was hard work and ate up a lot of time - and concrete.

If the new fee had been in place, he said, all he would have to do is notify the city, and the repair would have been done at no additional charge to him.

By imposing the new fee, Mr. Arnett said, the city is assuming responsibility for repairs.

Also, he said, property owners are no longer liable in cases where pedestrians fall and are injured because of a sidewalk's disrepair.

Property owners still must shovel snow and ice and remove debris from sidewalks going past their property, Mr. Arnett said.

City Attorney Shaem C. Spencer referred a reporter's calls about liability to the mayor's office.

Mr. Arnett said the good news about better sidewalks and reducing property owners' liability, has been lost in the uproar because the mayor and City Council did a poor job of publicizing the new fee.

"Public education is a huge piece of the job, and we just really dropped the ball on this," he said. "The intent was a noble one, but the message was pitiful."

Alderwoman Classie Hoyle, D-Ward 3, said she has gotten an earful from constituents.

"When I got home last night from the council meeting, I had 30 calls," she said yesterday. "This morning, I started at 7:30 a.m. getting calls. I went out briefly and when I got back, I had another 16 calls."

"It has gotten racial, with people saying 'The city wants to build sidewalks so Hispanics can walk the streets,'" Mrs. Hoyle said.

Ms. Hoyle said that while the fee is reasonable, the city has done a very poor job of telling the public what the charge is, and why it is needed.

"We just didn't do what we should have done," she said, "we should have sent letters out first, we should have explained."