SPRINGFIELD - A struggle between two industries. An eleventh hour phone call. An amendment to an ordinance written by a lawyer for the industry it was designed to regulate.

On Monday night, the Springfield City Council delayed a vote on an amendment that would have subjected ride-sharing services like Uber to the same regulations as taxi companies. And though the delay means that, for now, no rules have changed, the background behind the decision sheds light on a lengthy contest between the city's taxi operators and the tech-savvy startups who are now their competition.

In an interview, City Council President Michael Fenton described the bill's path to the council floor as "tangled."

"There has been a lot of back-and-forth on this issue over the course of the last 6-12 months," Fenton said.

Local regulation of ridesharing applications, which allow riders to hail and pay drivers from their smartphones, has drawn national attention in recent weeks. Uber has suspended its service in Austin, Texas, after voters rejected a referendum that would have overturned some of the city's regulations of the company.

Uber declined to comment on the specifics of Springfield's proposal, which is back before the general government committee for more study. The company is focused on state-wide regulations which are being considered on Beacon Hill and would supercede local measures, spokeswoman Carlie Waibel said.

But the company nearly had to confront a set of regulations that would have made sweeping changes to how it could do business in Springfield. The bill would have placed Uber under the same regulations as taxi and livery companies - including mandatory fingerprinting, background checks and taxi and livery licenses for its drivers, additional inspections for Uber cars and having its prices subject to Taxi and Livery Commission approval.

That proposal was set for a city council vote before an Uber representative called Fenton an hour before the council's meeting began, Fenton said. The company had been taken by surprise, and requested time to give input to the council.

"She called me and said, 'Look, we've got these statewide regulations that are about to go into effect. Please don't do this, we didn't know,' " Fenton said. "I said OK, we'll delay it tonight. We'll have some further discussion and investigation based on Uber's testimony."

The bill had the support of the city's law department and was approved by the Taxi and Livery Commission.

And it had been written by Peter Slepchuk, an attorney for Yellow Cab, the largest taxi operator in the city of Springfield.

"I wrote it, substantially. I introduced it to the taxi commission last summer as a way of regulating these [transportation network companies] to put them on an equal footing with the taxi cab companies," Slepchuk said.

City Solicitor Ed Pikula confirmed that the ordinance had been written by the taxi cab industry, and that the law department had decided to support it after considering a recent legal decision that pressed the city of Boston to regulate taxis and ride-sharing services under the same standards.

"He proposed it and we wanted to study it," Pikula said. "We advised our client accordingly."

The introduction of the bill, and its subsequent withdrawal, was part of Slepchuk's long battle to gain what he describes as equal treatment for taxi operators.

In Springfield, taxis cannot be hailed on the street, have to go before the Taxi and Livery Commission to change their prices and have criminal background requirements for their drivers, as well as special inspections for their cars. Ridesharing services should share the same restrictions, Slepchuk argued.

"There is no reason why they should be treated differently under regulatory authority," he said.

In other cities, Uber has seen things differently. While the company has not weighed in on the Springfield bill, or on a similar measure last summer in Braintree, it led a $9 million political campaign against Austin's regulations, arguing that fingerprinting was unnecessary and that a loss of ridesharing could lead to an increase in drunk driving and a decrease in jobs.

"We are disappointed that after two years of providing safe, reliable rides to Austinites with ridesharing, the city will be taking over background checks without a plan or a budget," the political committee funded by Uber and its competitor Lyft said on its website.

The company used aggressive tactics, including texting riders to vote in its favor. Uber and its competitor Lyft stopped operating in Austin after losing the vote.

Lyft does not operate in Springfield. Uber has expanded significantly since it launched in Western Massachusetts in April, 2015; as of February the service had 17,000 active riders and 1,000 drivers in the region.

Springfield's debate has been lower-key, far less public and, until Monday, involved essentially no input from Uber.

Slepchuck said he first submitted the ordinance last summer to the Taxi and Livery Commission, seeking their support before the bill reached the city council. The commission rejected it at an August 11, 2015 meeting.

The ordinance was then submitted to the city's law department and city council. The council recommended the bill to the general government committee on April 4 with the law department's blessing. The Taxi and Livery Commission reversed its earlier decision, voicing support for the measure. And on May 5 the general government committee reported the ordinance favorably, setting the stage for a possible decision on May 16.

Slepchuk and the city's cab operators will now have to wait a little longer, after Fenton's decision to delay the vote until Uber has a chance to provide input.

Complicating the city's efforts are the state legislature's ongoing negotiations over ridesharing regulations.

The Massachusetts House passed a bill in March requiring a two-part background check for drivers, in which drivers would undergo background checks both by the company and by the state. People would be disqualified from driving if they have a history of violent crime, sexual abuse, driving under the influence, hit and run, driving with a suspended license, felony robbery or fraud, or multiple violations within a short time period.

The proposed regulations do not include mandatory fingerprinting - a sticking point in the company's dispute with Austin.

Slepchuk's ordinance includes a provision saying that any state regulation of ridesharing companies would supercede the local law. Asked why it was worth passing a city-wide measure when state regulations are on the horizon, Slepchuk said that local cab companies have been waiting for two years for the statehouse to act.

"It would supercede it if they ever get around to it," Slepchuk said. "There's no deadline in sight."