Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears AI‑driven class‑and‑comp tool; staff recommends one‑year Holly pilot instead of traditional RFP study
Summary
City staff said a traditional class and compensation study had been budgeted at $80,000; Holly representatives proposed an $8,500/year AI platform to modernize class specifications and provide quarterly market scraping; staff recommended a year‑long pilot to test the tool and reduce consultant costs.
Representatives of Holly, an AI‑driven workforce classification and compensation platform, presented to the Sierra Madre City Council on Feb. 10 and described an alternative to a one‑time consultant study.
Bridal Helweg, co‑founder of Holly, and Rahul explained that the platform scrapes publicly posted class specifications, salary schedules and MOUs, provides match scores to comparable agencies, and offers prompting tools to modernize job descriptions and benchmark pay. Holly quoted a subscription cost of about $8,500 per year and said that a traditional one‑time class and comp study typically costs $60,000 or more.
Staff told the Council that $80,000 had been budgeted for a traditional consultant study in the current year and that staff recommended receiving and filing the presentation and pursuing a one‑year pilot to test Holly’s functionality and ongoing support. "Holly's platform would only cost the city of Sierra Madre around $8,500 a year, and there's no implementation fees at all," a Holly presenter said during the demonstration.
Council members asked about data sources, comparator selection, whether MOUs and step increases could be scraped and how state‑level bargaining patterns might be accounted for; Holly said data come from publicly posted jurisdiction materials and that customers can customize comparator lists and prompt rules. Staff noted the platform could be implemented relatively quickly and recommended piloting the technology to manage recurring classification updates rather than repeatedly paying for largeone‑time consultant studies.
The Council did not approve a contract at the Feb. 10 meeting; staff said they would return with procurement and pilot details if Council supported a test engagement.
