In the next month, Evanston Great Bank President and Chairman John Sheldon will see cars parked illegally in his bank’s lot — and he won’t be able to do a thing about it.

Sheldon, who has employed Guardian Parking Services to patrol the bank’s lot and immobilize parking scofflaws’ vehicles, says Evanston City Council’s extension of an ordinance prohibiting the immobilization, or booting, of vehicles on private property is a good start — it just poses a real problem for the bank.

“I am mainly concerned for my customers,” Sheldon says. “People come and leave here with a lot of money, and it’s a risk when there are no spots for them in the lot.”

The ordinance, passed June 12 by City Council, placed a 90-day moratorium on booting on private property so aldermen could discuss the positives and negatives of imposing regulations. At their Sept. 11 meeting, aldermen extended the moratorium 45 days.

“There were enough complaints and personal concerns brought to us that we decided we needed to examine the problem,” Ald. Stephen Engelman (7th) said.

Engelman said his opposition to booting hinges on three issues: trespassers who don’t realize they are parking illegally, the high price for detaching the boot and the lack of a way to allow violators who don’t have enough money with them to still drive their cars.

“Booting also allows for a direct confrontation between the violator and the parking lot patrollers that leads to bad tempers,” Engelman said. “At least with towing, there is a sort of cooling-off period.”

But Guardian manager Mark Denigris said he disagrees.

“Towing leaves a person stranded. There are many towing fees … and there may be damages to the car,” Denigris said. “With booting, we don’t damage the vehicle, the car stays where it is and they can pay the fee right there.”

The advantages of booting outweigh the benefits of towing, says Ald. Edmund Moran (6th ).

“I’m still waiting to hear what the big downside is,” Moran says. “Businesses who have hired attendants confirm that the number of incidents of parking violations reduces.”

The parking lot at Evanston Great Bank is a good example of less-frequent parking violations occurring after booting was implemented, Sheldon said.

“They don’t hear from the thousands of customers who use the parking lot for us and are happy that they now have spots,” he said.

According to Denigris, Guardian tries to accommodate by accepting credit cards and checks. With nine signs posted in the parking lot of Burger King, for example, Guardian surpasses the one-sign-per-lot that the law requires towing companies to post, Denigris says.

As for the $105 fee for detaching the boot from the cars, Denigris said the reason the fee hasn’t been lowered is to avoid undercutting the tow companies. In Chicago, where booting also has been prohibited to allow a period of evaluation, the detachment fee is $90, says Denigris.

Parking by non-customers after business hours also is an issue. Aldermen say those who are booted or asked to leave lots then have complained.

But Sheldon, whose bank is involved in a lawsuit with someone who contends to have been injured in the bank’s parking lot, said he hires Guardian to patrol the lot because his business is liable for what happens on it every hour of the day.

Until City Council decides whether it will allow booting, Sheldon said he’ll have to revert to towing or another type of service to control the number of cars in his lot.