The move comes four weeks after the council overrode the mayor's veto and just three weeks before the ordinance was set to take effect.

The effective date of the ordinance, originally scheduled for May 1, has been pushed back to July 1. Several council members announced their support for the two-month delay, believing it will assist emerging rideshare companies trying to secure licenses in Minneapolis.

Recent data reveals that as of April 4, four companies, including MOOV, Joiryde, MyWeels, and Wridz, have applied for licenses in the city. The approval process typically takes between two and six weeks, according to city officials. Many companies have expressed interest in filling the potential void if Uber and Lyft decide to leave Minneapolis, a situation they have threatened during the progress of the ordinance.

While the delayed start date offers temporary relief for Uber and Lyft, state lawmakers continue to work on a statewide rideshare measure. If approved during this session, it could potentially preempt the city's ordinance, although this outcome remains uncertain. Both Uber and Lyft have confirmed that they will remain in the city until July 1.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, while stating that a delay is not a solution, mentioned that he would collaborate with policymakers and partners from various communities to find a way forward for drivers and riders. It is anticipated that the delayed start date will still take effect, despite the mayor's reservations.

During the council meeting, other amendments were proposed, including an attempt by Ward 13 representative Linea Palmisano to rescind the ordinance entirely, which failed. Council members Andrea Jenkins and Emily Koski also proposed an amendment to change the per-mile rate from $1.40 to $1.21, aligning with the rate recommended in the state's report. This amendment was also rejected.

The council meeting was marked by passionate discussions and applause from community members. Ward 4 representative LaTrisha Vetaw expressed concerns about the rush in implementing the ordinance, particularly in relation to the demands placed on new rideshare companies.

Palmisano, in her motion to rescind the ordinance, acknowledged Council member Jenkins for her efforts while stating that the ordinance had faced significant backlash and public opposition, making it irreparable. Jenkins, on the other hand, emphasized the need for refinement rather than rescission, highlighting the thoughtful process that led to the ordinance's passing.

Several council members criticized Uber and Lyft, arguing that the companies exploit workers, and asserting that the ordinance was designed to prevent such exploitation.

Responding to the delay, Uber expressed appreciation for the additional time to work with state leaders on a broader solution. Lyft welcomed the council's recognition of the flaws in the ordinance but reiterated its stance that the ordinance would force them to exit the city if implemented.

The Minnesota Uber/Lyft Drivers Association (MULDA) also voiced support for the delay, praising the council's commitment to drivers' fair treatment. MULDA's president, Eid Ali, affirmed drivers' unwavering resolve in pursuing equitable working conditions.

Some Republican state lawmakers urged Minneapolis to wait for statewide legislation following this latest development.

As the discussions continue, the Minneapolis City Council aims to strike a balance between implementing a fair rideshare ordinance and addressing concerns raised by rideshare companies, drivers, and community members.