Salt Lake City's insurer has asked a judge to rule whether it's legal for the City Council to offer health insurance to adult siblings, parents, roommates and partners of city employees.

The plan, which went into effect March 3, superseded a similar plan from Mayor Rocky Anderson that offered health insurance only to domestic partners. The Utah Retirement Board, which operates the Public Employees Health Plan, asked a judge to decide on the legality of Anderson's order, but the board has now switched that request for judgment to the council's ordinance.

The board wants to know how Utah's Defense of Marriage Act and Amendment Three to Utah's Constitution, both of which identify marriage as solely between a man and a woman, would allow insurance benefits to all of the people eligible under the city's plan.

It is unclear whether the ordinance "is a law creating benefits substantially equivalent to those given to married couples 'because they are married,' " wrote the board in its request for judgment.

The city will start a one-month open enrollment period for the insurance on Wednesday. Employees must show that they share financial obligations, such as bank accounts, mortgages or life insurance policies, and have lived with the sibling, parent, roommate or partner for at least a year.

When the city offered open enrollment after Anderson signed an executive order offering benefits to domestic partners, 17 people filled out the paperwork. City Council Analyst Jennifer Bruno expects between 58 and 96 people to enroll under the council's plan.

The city has 10 days to respond to the board's filing but expects to do that sooner than the deadline, City Attorney Ed Rutan said. The state board wants a prompt ruling, as well, said Dave Hansen, the board's lawyer.

"We're actually anxious to get something decided, so the quicker we can move, the better," Hansen said.

The City Council passed its insurance plan months after Anderson's executive order. The council's ordinance made Anderson's order defunct. Anderson on Feb. 21 vetoed the council's plan, but the council unanimously overrode his veto two days later.

The city had waited until the end of the Legislature before asking the board to offer the insurance because a bill from Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, would have restricted how cities and counties pay for supplemental insurance. Christensen wanted to limit the insurance to traditional dependents — spouses and children — and require that employees wholly pay for any additional insurance themselves. That bill did not pass the Legislature.

---

E-mail: kswinyard@desnews.com