A divided city council gave preliminary approval yesterday to a revised fiscal oversight plan for the city of Pittsburgh while adding dozens of proposed changes.

On a 5-3 vote, with one abstention, council set the stage for a final vote on the plan next week. But exactly what form the plan will take at that point was unclear as the lawmakers acknowledged that a state oversight board was likely to reject at least some of the changes.

Councilman Bill Peduto called it a "throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" approach as the members approved an array of recommended changes to the five-year fiscal recovery package.

Among the more significant alterations was a call for raises of 2.5 percent for city employees over the next five years. The new Act 47 plan, as originally drafted, proposed a $1,000 bonus for city employees to be followed by raises of 2 percent, then three percent in subsequent years. The change offered yesterday would add some $10 million to the city's payroll over five years.

Mayor Ravenstahl called the council's action "irresponsible," contending that lawmakers had jeopardized the city's future in the interests of "giving an ice cream cone to the world."

"Council members clearly are unwilling to make the tough choices," Mr. Ravenstahl said during a news conference after the council session.

Mr. Peduto, the chairman of the council's finance committee, said later that the mayor's criticisms were unhelpful amid the uncertainty over whether the renewed Act 47 document will ever be able to muster the five votes needed for final passage.

Mr. Peduto said he expected word from the state oversight board by Friday on which of the new provisions would be acceptable and which would be discarded.

Mr. Ravenstahl argued that the original wage package was reasonable at a time when cash-strapped governments across the country were being forced into widespread layoffs.

Mr. Peduto said the wage increase was modest in light of the belt-tightening city employees had been subjected to over the city's first five years of state fiscal oversight. He noted that the difference of $10 million represented a relatively small increase in the city's total annual payroll of approximately $600 million.

Mr. Peduto and some council allies had hoped to come to yesterday's session with a consensus package of amendments designed to improve both the plan's substance and its chances for passage. He said that a package of amendments negotiated through the day Tuesday was revenue neutral and had been informally vetted by the state oversight team and predicted that roughly 85 percent of its features would be acceptable to the state officials.

One key proposal that appeared to have the support of a majority of council along with the mayor was a call for extending the city's 0.55 percent tax on payrolls to nonprofit institutions. That would require action by the Legislature.

One amendment recommends a fallback plan, in the event that the state does not approve the change, that would impose fees on parking garages, on hospitals for each admission, and on colleges for each undergraduate. Council members said that the fee structure could be a lever for legislative action on the payroll tax as the fees would amount to a greater financial burden that the alternative tax.

The lengthy council meeting quickly moved beyond the first batch of changes and turned into an amendment free-for-all.

Councilwoman Darlene Harris, who participated by telephone, offered an amendment asserting the city's claim to revenue collected within its borders under the county's drink and rental car taxes.

Council President Doug Shields proposed that county government assume the responsibilities of the city police's major crimes and homicide squads.

Councilwoman Tonya Payne offered a mandate for the city to mount a legal challenge to the state law that bars it from enacting a commuter tax, an option provided for other cities operating under Act 47.

One amendment with a significant though unspecified price tag came from Councilman Jim Motznik, who urged his colleagues to strip the plan and the city's managers of significant power in controlling labor costs and work rules.

"All unions have a right to collective bargaining, and that takes away that right. And I don't agree with that," Mr. Motznik said.

Contracts with the city's police and fire department employees expire Dec. 31 and negotiations with their unions are set to begin July 1.

That date is behind a June 30 deadline that the city and the Act 47 officials have sought to impose on the adoption of a new fiscal oversight plan.

There were warnings from all sides of dire consequences should the council and the mayor fail to endorse a plan by June 30, although it was unclear exactly what jeopardy the city might face.

In an e-mail to Councilman Patrick Dowd, state officials said they would consider a variety of sanctions against the city, including the loss of millions of dollars in state aid, including its share of the proceeds of a new casino.

"The June 30 deadline is a deadline that has to be met," Mr. Ravenstahl said.

Mr. Dowd, Ms. Payne and Mr. Motznik voted against the revised plan yesterday. Voting yes were Mr. Peduto, Ms. Harris, Councilman Bruce Kraus, Councilwoman Theresa Kail-Smith and Councilman Ricky Burgess. Council President Doug Shields abstained.