DCWP posted the Local Law 61 wage floor. NYC co-op and condo boards have 103 days to budget it.

On September 1, 2026, the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection posted its Minimum Wage Schedule under Local Law 61 of 2026. For a co-op or condo building with a 24-hour security or doorman contract, that schedule puts a dollar figure on a cost increase that has been coming since January. The rate runs from $18.87 to $33.70 per hour depending on classification, plus $8.47 per hour in supplemental benefits when that phase begins in 2029. A building running shifts across three guard posts seven days a week is looking at $60,000 to $70,000 more per year. The managing agent who coordinates that contract renewal needs no state license in New York.

What Local Law 61 of 2026 requires.

New York City Local Law 61 of 2026 (Int. 1391-A) requires any employer with a security guard contract above $1,500 to pay those guards at least the prevailing wage set by the City Comptroller's schedule. The wage floor takes effect January 1, 2027. Paid time off follows on January 1, 2028. Supplemental benefits follow on January 1, 2029. The City Council enacted the law on January 29, 2026, overriding a mayoral veto. The operative statutory authority is NYC Admin Code § 20-1602.

The law reaches both direct employers and contracted service providers. A co-op or condo that hires a private security company is not a direct employer under the statute, but the mandate flows through to the contractor. Security vendors will price the wage increase into their next contract renewal. Buildings with contracts expiring before January 1, 2027, are negotiating now against a schedule that is already public. Buildings whose contracts run past January 1 face a mid-term adjustment or a vendor invoking a wage-escalation or force majeure clause.

The wage schedule DCWP posted on September 1.

The DCWP Minimum Wage Schedule for Covered Security Guards governs wages from January 1, 2027, through June 30, 2027. The schedule spans classification tiers that vary by post type and whether the guard is armed. The range at the bottom is $18.87 per hour for unarmed lobby coverage; the range at the top is $33.70 per hour for armed or high-security posts. The supplemental benefits component, adding $8.47 per hour, does not begin until January 1, 2029.

The DCWP publishes a new schedule each September 1 governing the following calendar year. The January-through-June 2027 schedule is the one boards are budgeting against now. The second-half rate for July through December 2027 is expected to be published no later than March 1, 2027. For buildings that also fall under the New York State Department of Labor's prevailing wage schedule for District 10 security guards (effective July 1, 2026, at $26 to $34 per hour before benefits), the board takes whichever rate is higher. Class A commercial buildings and mixed-use condominiums with significant commercial space may fall under both.

What those rates mean in dollars for a building with round-the-clock coverage.

A co-op or condominium with doorman or security coverage across three 8-hour shifts, seven days a week, contracts roughly 5,500 to 6,000 hours per year at the lobby/unarmed tier. At $18.87 per hour, the wage floor on that staffing runs approximately $104,000 to $113,000 annually before benefits. Many buildings are currently paying $16 to $18 per hour under contracts written before the law passed in January 2026. At the lower end of that gap, $0.87 per hour across 5,500 hours adds $4,800 per year. At a $2.87 spread, it adds $15,800.

Industry estimates of $60,000 to $70,000 in added annual cost reflect a different scenario: buildings where current contracted rates sit materially below the floor across multiple guard posts, or where the security contract bundles overhead, scheduling, compliance costs, and contractor margin that vendors will reprice on renewal. The $60,000-to-$70,000 figure also appears in analyses of Class A buildings with a mix of armed and unarmed posts. The actual number for any specific building depends on three inputs: the current per-hour rate in the contract, the guard classification mix, and whether the contract includes provisions for wage-law adjustments.

The contract timeline boards face before January 1.

The most time-sensitive situation is a security contract that expires in the fourth quarter of 2026. That renewal will be priced against the DCWP's September 1 schedule whether or not the vendor calls it out. Boards in this position need three things before signing: a copy of the DCWP Minimum Wage Schedule (available at the DCWP website under "Security Guard Rights"), the guard classification breakdown from their current contract, and a line item in any renewal proposal showing the per-hour cost before and after the January 1 threshold. Without the classification breakdown, a board cannot verify whether the proposed rate tracks the actual DCWP floor or includes a premium padded for the vendor's overhead and margin.

For buildings with contracts already running into 2027 or 2028, the question is whether those contracts include a wage-adjustment clause triggered by a wage-law change. Many security contracts written before January 2026 do not. In that case, the vendor will either absorb the difference until renewal or claim a contractual right to adjust. Boards should request the adjustment-clause language from their managing agent before November 1 and get legal review if the language is ambiguous. A vendor that demands a mid-contract price increase without clear contractual authority has a weaker position than it may appear.

New York still licenses no one managing that contract.

The managing agent is typically the party who solicits bids from security vendors, reviews proposals, and presents a recommendation to the board. In most buildings, the board approves the final contract and the managing agent handles the ongoing vendor relationship. For a security contract now subject to a prevailing wage mandate, that means the managing agent is the one interpreting the DCWP wage schedule, verifying the vendor's classification tier, and reviewing the renewal terms for wage-adjustment language.

New York has no license requirement for managing agents. A person can manage a $200 million co-op building, analyze a prevailing wage contract, and face no professional discipline if the analysis is wrong. There is no state exam, no continuing education requirement, no bond, and no registry where unit owners can check a managing agent's disciplinary history. NY Senate Bill S.71 (Kavanagh) would have required managing agents to register with the Secretary of State and obtain certification from an approved organization. The bill did not receive a committee hearing in nine consecutive sessions. As of September 19, 2026, the 2027 session has no identified sponsor. Local Law 61 adds a new cost obligation to the managing agent's portfolio. It adds no accountability for how that obligation is handled.

Bottom line.

The DCWP Minimum Wage Schedule under Local Law 61 is public as of September 1, 2026. The rates are $18.87 to $33.70 per hour depending on guard classification, effective January 1, 2027, with supplemental benefits of $8.47 per hour beginning January 1, 2029. For a building with full-time security staffing, the cost impact is calculable today from the DCWP schedule and the building's current contract. The managing agent handling the contract review holds no state license, and no agency audits the work. Boards that want accurate projections before January 1 should pull the DCWP schedule directly, request the guard classification breakdown from their vendor, and compare that breakdown against any renewal proposals already on the table.

Primary sources: DCWP Minimum Wage Schedule for Covered Security Guards (September 1, 2026); NYC Admin Code § 20-1602; Int. 1391-A / Local Law 61 of 2026.

Companion resources: Local Law 61: what the law requires and when it takes effect · The NYC local-law extraction stack · The managing agent bill has no Senate sponsor going into 2027 · Issue: the managing agent licensure gap · Tell your rep: S.71 needs a sponsor