A City-County Council member hopes to revive a proposal to more tightly regulate the way businesses hire off-duty police in the wake of an investigation of a scrap-metal company that hired 51 officers for security.

City-County Councilman Vernon Brown last summer proposed the creation of a secondary employment unit to oversee the hiring of off-duty officers, firefighters and sheriff’s deputies.

But the proposal failed to win support because of concerns by the police union and council Republicans that it would raise the rates charged to businesses so high that IMPD officers would lose jobs to lower-cost officers from other departments.

Under Brown’s proposal, the new unit, which would be a division of the city’s Public Safety Department, would charge an hourly fee of $5 whenever a uniformed officer was hired to provide security at a business and $10 per hour if the job included the use of a patrol car. The company would still pay the officer separately, typically about $25 to $35 an hour.

At this point, no rates have been set. But Brown, a Democrat, said similar systems in place across the country allow cities to recoup the expenses associated with using patrol cars and other city property.

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department has issued off-duty work permits to about 850 of its 1,700 officers. These officers typically take jobs providing security in hospitals and schools and outside bars and nightclubs. Under existing policy, officers cannot work at strip clubs, adult bookstores or any business involved in “illegal activity.” Supervisors must approve all off-duty jobs.

Defenders of moonlighting by police say it provides the community with extra security at no public expense in places such as Broad Ripple, saving on-duty officers from having to respond to less-serious problems.

Brown’s proposal to provide greater oversight of moonlighting officers never advanced beyond committee, but he said there is more interest in it now in the aftermath of the raid last month at OmniSource, a metal-recycling company.

Police say the raid followed a yearlong investigation into whether workers at the company knowingly purchased stolen scrap metal. No arrests have been made, and authorities have not said whether they suspect any officers of breaking the law. Among the officers employed by the company were a district commander and the lead investigator of metal thefts.

In its initial response, IMPD placed new restrictions on moonlighting, prohibiting top-level commanders from taking outside jobs and barring other officers from working in jobs related to their police duties or patrol districts.

Scott Newman, the city’s public safety director, met with Brown and other council members even before the raid about the potential of reviving Brown’s proposal in some way.

Brown modeled his proposal, to an extent, on a secondary employment unit (SEU) in Nashville, Tenn.

Nashville created its unit in 1999 in response to a string of scandals over security services provided by some of its officers at apartment complexes. In a practice called brokering, officers who won security contracts would hire others for less money, skimming large profits for little effort.

Nashville wanted to put an end to the practice because “it’s about someone using the department as a business tool,” said Sgt. Kimberly Forsyth, manager of Nashville’s SEU.

Companies submit their requests through Forsyth’s office. The department charges a minimum of $66 per hour. Officers earn at least $34 per hour, while the difference goes to run the SEU office and to the department for vehicle maintenance and insurance.

A lower-cost option allows businesses to receive a license from the department at no charge and then negotiate an hourly rate directly with officers. In those instances, however, an officer is not allowed to use a department vehicle.

Police in San Jose, Calif., use a different model, though, again, the dollars are split between the department and the officer, and oversight is key.

San Jose requires companies hiring police officers to buy a permit, which can vary in price depending on how often they need security and whether they want to use police cars.

In Indianapolis, Republican Councilmen Ryan Vaughn and Ben Hunter said they prefer this option.

Primarily, they said, that’s because they are concerned that setting hourly fees too high would allow police from nearby areas to charge lower rates and take jobs from IMPD officers.

Although Police Chief Michael Spears supports tightening the regulations, he also shares that concern.

“A significant drawback might be that such a method of employment might prove to be too costly for some organizations currently employing officers on an off-duty basis,” he said in an e-mail.

The chief himself has run into trouble over outside work. In November 2006, he quit a job as a security officer for the Indianapolis Colts after The Indianapolis Star reported that he had worked four games that season.

Steve Ross, longtime owner of the Vogue in Broad Ripple, said he has hired off-duty officers for security outside his nightclub for 15 years. He said he pays an officer $25 an hour for a six-hour shift three nights a week.

“If they bump the rate up to $30 or $35 an hour, we’d probably cut back on their hours,” Ross said. “Maybe have them come in at 11 instead of 10” p.m.

William Owensby, president of the city’s police union, expressed support for a new approach but also said he is “absolutely against” the proposal as it was written last year, because the fees were too high.

“In theory, a secondary employment unit could work,” Owensby said. “But it would have to be written carefully.”

Newman said he expects to meet again with Brown and other council members to hash out details.