It will be at least another two months before business owners can boot cars illegally parked on their property.

Evanston City Council on Monday night voted 9-0 to extend a ban on immobilizing cars on private property for another 65 days until a new ordinance can be drafted that would regulate its use for a six-month trial period.

Members of the council’s Administration and Public Works committee recommended extending the moratorium to give the city’s attorneys time to research and draft the ordinance. The new ordinance would place safeguards and licensing requirements on private booting companies as well as restrict the practice to the downtown business district.

At its June 12 meeting, the 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.

But aldermen said this extension would be the last. Within the next two months, the council will vote whether to ban booting forever or allow it in the restricted form.

At the end of the six-month trial period, the council will evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations and make a final decision on allowing businesses to boot in Evanston.

Ald. Eugene Feldman (9th) said the council was most concerned with having a just, effective and efficient ordinance that would not trample the rights of people.

“This can’t be in any way an oppressive experience for people,” Feldman said.

The committee also voted to reject a bid by Winkler’s Tree Service to trim trees for the city’s Department of Parks, Forestry and Recreation. The council accepted the recommendation, voting 7-2 against taking the bid.

Committee members Ald. Ann Rainey (8th), Ald. Dennis Drummer (2nd) and Feldman said they voted to reject the bid because of issues related to a defamation suit that Vince Winkler filed in April against Evanston resident Mimi Peterson.

Peterson in January criticized Winkler’s tree-trimming work on Evanston’s parkway trees. But forestry department officials told city staff members they approved of Winkler’s work last year and recommended that the council accept his bid on a new contract.

In a letter to the council dated Oct. 20, Winkler said that because he was backed by city forestry officials he would dismiss the lawsuit against Peterson if the aldermen awarded him the tree-trimming contract.

“I view these recommendations as a vindication of the quality of the work performed by our firm,” Winkler said. “I would view the award of this year’s contract as even further vindication.”

But several aldermen said the letter solidified their rejection of the bid because they thought the tone of Winkler’s letter was offensive.

“We’ve been trying to avoid vindicating anyone,” Drummer said. “Our message was clear before: The council will not be put on the spot.”

Rainey said she resented Winkler’s intent and questioned whether he had been misled into believing that the council would accept what she said amounted to a bribe.

“I am willing to postpone any contract so we can cleanse our soul of this nasty mess Winkler has put us in,” she said.

Ald. Edmund Moran (6th), who voted against the rejection in the committee meeting, said the lawsuit and the vote on the bid should be regarded as separate issues. The council, he said, should examine the forestry department’s recommendations to accept Winkler’s bid and resort to the normal criterion of evaluating contracts.

“I am chagrined about this situation,” he said. “I wish none of this had happened, but because we are in the situation we’re in, we must deal with it.”

Peterson said she was pleased with the committee’s vote.

“I think they made the right decision,” she said.

Forestry workers will work on the worst trees until next year when the council will send out another request for bids on a new contract.