Rochester Public Market

CONCEPTUAL RENDERING
INTERIOR OF RENOVATED SHED B ROCHESTER PUBLIC MARKET

LOOKING EAST
MASTER PLAN REPORT
Rochester Public Market
Renovations and Expansion to Wintershed Facility
Master Plan Report - Executive Summary
Introduction
In January 2011, the City of Rochester Department of Environmental Services, Bureau of Architecture
and Engineering retained a professional services and design team led by T.Y. Lin International, with
PLAN Architectural Studio and Market Ventures Inc., to prepare a Master Plan and Schematic Design for
comprehensive renovations and expansion of the Rochester Public Market Wintershed. The Wintershed
(referred to as Shed B) is an enclosed facility of approximately 10,500 sf constructed in 1978, that
exhibits deficiencies with regards to code compliance, vendor stall sizes, circulation, transparency &
visibility, plumbing and HVAC.
This report is the result of the collective efforts of the information gathered from multiple sources over a
one-year period, outlining recommendations to accomplish the following goals set forth by the City of
Rochester, the project team, and stakeholders of the Rochester Public Market (RPM):
1. Create an active market district throughout the week and year

2. Serve a wide range of customers, including low income families
3. Create expanded, modern enclosed facilities that meet the needs of current and future vendors,
as well as the public (including additional restrooms)
4. Develop facilities for events and educational programming
5. Ensure operational continuity for current vendors
6. Expand the number of vending spaces under cover
Contents of this Report
This report consists of the following documents:
- Master Plan - Site Plan Drawing

- Master Plan - Site Plan Drawing with Alternatives
- Concept Floor Plan of Rehabilitated Wintershed
- Master Plan Concept Cost Projections
Appendixes:
- Market Analysis
- Financial Analysis
- Consumer Survey
- Existing Conditions Report of Wintershed
Master Plan Program and Phasing
The Master Plan proposes a phased construction strategy to accomplish the six goals outlined above:
Phase IA Construct new open Shed ‘D’ $ 2,310,000

Phase IB Winterize existing Shed ‘C’ $ 1,590,000
Phase IC Renovate existing Shed ‘B’ into a “Wintershed-plus” $ 4,536,750
Total for Phase I $ 8,436,750
Phase II The Market House & Market Plaza $ 1,997,550
Phase III New storefront building (Public-Private Partnership) $ 2,885,000
Alternate Scenario
Single phase project: Only renovate existing Shed ‘B’ as a Wintershed: $ 4,103,750
Alternate Scenario – Single Phase Project: Only renovate existing Shed ‘B’ as a Wintershed
An alternate scenario, in which only Shed ‘B’ is renovated, rather than a multi-phased plan, has been
explored. This would provide limited improvements to the existing Wintershed and adjacent food kiosks.
In this scenario, the shed would not be enlarged and the amount of vendor spaces under cover would not
be increased. Nor would it provide additional toilet rooms or a pedestrian-oriented market plaza with
facilities for educational programming. As the Designers, we would not recommend this option due to its
limited scope which would not achieve the six previously outlined goals.
Master Plan Summary
The Master Plan will accomplish the six goals outlined, and includes improvements to the Wintershed and
its positive impact on the entire Rochester Public Market (RPM). As noted in the Financial Analysis
located in the Appendixes, annual gross operating income for the RPM could increase by 39 percent from
its current budget by implementing this rational phased approach. The following positive outcomes will be
achieved:
1. An active market district will be maintained and increased throughout the week and year with
additional updated enclosed facilities, and storefronts that could be open later hours and on non-
market days.
2. A wide range of customers, including low income families will be served by creating opportunities
for a variety of product types.
3. Updating and expanding the amount of enclosed facilities by enclosing Shed ‘C’ and expanding
Shed ‘B’, including new and enlarged restroom facilities.
4. The renovated Market House and Market Plaza will provide facilities for events and educational
programming.
5. Phased construction allows continued operation of vendor and market operations, while
spreading out the construction costs over multiple years. It also provides for the displacement of
existing Wintershed vendors into permanent facilities during its renovation (with the exception of
the food vendors). This allows the Rochester Public Market to expand its facilities while
minimizing the need for temporary facilities.
6. The Master Plan recommendations provide a wider variety of vendor space types than what is
currently being offered, and increases the number of vendor spaces under cover.
The following components of the Program are as follows:
Phase IA – Construct new open Shed ‘D’

A new open shed is proposed in the location of where the original 1905 market shed once stood. It would
provide 48 additional vendor stalls. This phase will contribute to an active market district by introducing
“Market Street”, encouraging pedestrian activity along existing Commission Row. It would ensure
operational continuity for current vendors, acting as ‘swing space’ to accommodate displaced vendors
while other buildings are being renovated. This will minimize interruption to vendor operations throughout
construction phases and expand the number of covered vendor spaces.
Phase IB – Winterize existing Shed ‘C’

The existing open shed would be enclosed with overhead aluminum and glass garage doors and
storefront. This phase will contribute to several goals, including the creation of modern, enclosed facilities
that would ensure operational continuity for displaced Wintershed vendors during renovations. Upon
completion, this newly enclosed facility would expand the number of vending spaces undercover,
contributing to an active market district throughout the year.
Phase IC – Renovate existing Shed ‘B’ into a “Wintershed-plus”
The existing enclosed shed would be enlarged to accommodate vendor cooler and storage space,
incorporate the existing food kiosk vendors, widen the circulation aisle, provide code compliant plumbing
and heating, and add public restrooms. Visibility to and from the shed will be provided through
transparent aluminum and glass overhead garage doors and storefront. This phase will contribute to an
active market district throughout the year with its significantly improved enclosed facilities, and, along with
Shed ‘C’, and Shed ‘D’, expand the total number of RPM vending spaces under cover.
Phase II – The Market House and Market Plaza

This phase will include demolishing the existing restroom structure and restoring the existing 1930s
Market House for an educational facility with a demonstration kitchen and interpretive center. The
restored brick masonry Market House and new glass-enclosed addition would anchor an improved,
pedestrian-oriented Market Plaza in the heart of the Public Market. This phase would contribute to an
active market district throughout the week and year, serve a wide range of customers, and provide
facilities for events and educational programming.
Phase III – New Storefront Building (Public-Private Partnership)

At the northwest corner of the Market adjacent to the Union Street entrance, a new 9,100 sf storefront
building is proposed, that could house food producers with potential retail components. This phase would
contribute to an active market district throughout the week and year, as these vendors would be operating
regardless of whether the RPM was active. This building could accommodate existing RPM vendors who
seek to expand their operations, or draw in merchants and vendors looking to locate their businesses to
the Market.
SUMMARY
CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECTIONS
ROCHESTER PUBLIC MARKET
WINTERSHED PROJECT
MASTER PLAN
PLAN PROJECT No.: 059.11.01.01
LOCATION: Rochester, NY 13-Feb-12
PHASE: Master Plan / Early Schematic
4-PHASE MASTER PLAN SCENARIO

HARD COSTS SOFT COSTS TEMP. ITEM COSTS
PHASE APPROXIMATE MASTER PLAN LEVEL CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCYARCHITECTURAL FEES ENGINEERING (CSMPE) FEEABATEMENT DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL MISC. REIMB. EXPNS SPECIAL INSPECTION CM FEES PROJECT COST
# SCOPE ITEMS - BY PHASE CONSTRUCTION COST DESIGN CONTINGENCY (20%) (5% NEW - 10% RENOV.) (60-70% OF 10-12%) (30-40% OF 10-12%) FEES (LUMP EST.) TESTING/ANALYSIS (PRINT., POST., ETC.)TESTING & FEES (.065 %) (5%)
IA Construct New Open Shed D $1,600,000 $320,000 $80,000 $134,400 $57,600 $0 $4,000 $5,000 $12,480 $96,000 $2,310,000
IB Winterize Shed C $1,100,000 $220,000 $55,000 $92,400 $39,600 $0 $0 $5,000 $8,580 $66,000 $1,590,000
IC Renovate Shed B (as Wintershed-Plus) $2,900,000 $580,000 $290,000 $250,560 $167,040 $5,000 $4,000 $5,000 $22,620 $174,000 $4,400,000
Temp. Food Vendor Trailers $625 $1,875 $5,000 $100,000 $107,500
Temp. Utilities for B Vendors in Shed C $750 $2,250 $1,250 $25,000 $29,250
PHASE I
SUBTOTAL $8,436,750
II The Market House & Market Plaza $1,300,000 $260,000 $130,000 $112,320 $74,880 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,140 $78,000 $1,980,000
Temp. Trailer for Market House $450 $1,350 $750 $15,000 $17,550
PHASES I & II
TOTAL $6,900,000 $1,380,000 $555,000 $591,505 $344,595 $10,000 $11,000 $20,000 $53,820 $421,000 $140,000 $10,434,300
III Storefront Building $2,000,000 $400,000 $100,000 $156,000 $84,000 $0 $4,000 $5,000 $15,600 $120,000 $2,885,000
(Public / Private Partnership)
PHASES I, II & III Total for all Master Plan Items (including
GRAND TOTAL Public / Private Partnership Project) $8,900,000 $1,780,000 $655,000 $747,505 $428,595 $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 $69,420 $541,000 $140,000 $13,319,300
SHED B RENOVATION ONLY SCENARIO

HARD COSTS SOFT COSTS TEMP. ITEM COSTS
PHASE APPROXIMATE MASTER PLAN LEVEL CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCYARCHITECTURAL FEES ENGINEERING (CSMPE) FEEABATEMENT DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL MISC. REIMB. EXPNS SPECIAL INSPECTION CM FEES PROJECT COST
# SCOPE ITEMS - BY PHASE CONSTRUCTION COST DESIGN CONTINGENCY (20%) (5% NEW - 10% RENOV.) (60-80% OF 5-12%) (20-40% OF 5-12%) FEES (LUMP EST.) TESTING/ANALYSIS (PRINT., POST., ETC.)TESTING & FEES (.065 %) (5%)
I Renovate Shed B as Wintershed $2,565,000 $513,000 $256,500 $258,552 $110,808 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $20,007 $153,900 $3,890,000
New Food Kiosks & Assoc. Site Work
Temp. Tent Structures for Shed B Vendors $2,625 $875 $3,500 $70,000 $77,000
Temp. Utilities for B Vendors in Tents $750 $2,250 $1,250 $25,000 $29,250
Temp. Food Vendor Trailers $625 $1,875 $5,000 $100,000 $107,500
GRAND TOTAL $2,565,000 $513,000 $256,500 $262,552 $115,808 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $20,007 $163,650 $195,000 $4,103,750
Notes: 1) Cost Projections include approximate site improvement costs.

2) Cost for all phases include a 5% escalation for 2013 construction season.
3) Cost projections for construction beyond 2013 should be adjusted for escalation (dependent upon final phasing).
4) Cost projections are based upon a master plan (pre-schematic) level of design.
5) Architectural & Engineering Fees % Breakdown varies per Project Type.
6) Architectural & Engineering Fees % of Construction Cost varies per Project Type, includes Design Contingency, and excludes Construction Contingency.
7) Temporary Utility Costs are not included as it is assumed they will be offset by existing utility costs (Except for new temporary utilities provided to Shed C).
w w w. m a r k e t v e n t u r e s i n c . c o m
118 William Street 207.321.2016

Portland, Maine 04103

Renovation & Expansion Project
Market Analysis
Prepared for the City of Rochester

February 10, 2012
Table of Contents
1. Summary of Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 3
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

Research methodologies ............................................................................................................. 4
3. Market description .................................................................................................................. 5

Location and facilities ................................................................................................................. 5
Product mix ................................................................................................................................. 7
Customers ................................................................................................................................... 9
Management .............................................................................................................................. 17
Marketing .................................................................................................................................. 18
Finance ...................................................................................................................................... 18
4. Best practices ........................................................................................................................ 19

Key factors for success ............................................................................................................. 19
City Market, Kansas City .......................................................................................................... 23
5. Customer Demand Analysis ................................................................................................. 25

Trade areas ................................................................................................................................ 25
Tourists ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Sales potential ........................................................................................................................... 33
Demand analysis conclusions ................................................................................................... 36
6. Supply Analysis .................................................................................................................... 37
7. SWOT Analysis .................................................................................................................... 40

Strengths ................................................................................................................................... 40
Weakness .................................................................................................................................. 41
Opportunities............................................................................................................................. 41
Threats....................................................................................................................................... 41
8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 42
9. Appendix A. Marketview Heights study area ...................................................................... 43
10. Appendix B. City Market, Kansas City ............................................................................... 44
Market Analysis Page 1

Rochester Public Market Prepared by Market Ventures, Inc.
11. Appendix C. Store Locations ............................................................................................... 47
12. Appendix D. Sales Analysis ................................................................................................ 49

1. Summary of Conclusions
Principal conclusions of the Market Research include:
x There is a lack of preconditions to develop a daily fresh food market hall successfully at
the Rochester Public Market
x Consumers and vendors are both concerned about potential negative impacts of change,
so there needs to be a cautious, “do no harm” approach to improvements while making
changes incrementally and communicating those changes well
x Expanding the number of storefront businesses within the market district offers the
most promising way to achieve the goal of creating an active district throughout the
week
x A low cost/low impact way to increase activity at the Market throughout the year is to
enclose one or more of the Market sheds, potentially with simple garage door and
heating systems
x Demand for vendor space in the Market suggests an opportunity to increase the amount
of vending space, perhaps with a new Market shed
x There is a large untapped market of nearby residents, including those who receive
SNAP benefits and have few convenient places to buy fresh food
x Sundays offer the most promising additional day to consider operations
2. Introduction
In April 2011, the City of Rochester Department of Environmental Services, Bureau of
Architecture and Engineering retained a consultant team led by TYLin of Rochester to provide
market economic analysis and architectural and engineering services for renovations of the
Public Market Shed B (the “Wintershed”) and surrounding site. Market Ventures, Inc. (MVI) is
serving as a subconsultant to TYLin to share its national expertise in public market analysis,
planning and design. MVI’s roles include assisting TYLin on market research, evaluation of
best practices at other urban public markets, and development of a detailed market analysis to
corroborate proposed program and schematic design recommendations, as well as assistance
with design and financial analysis. This report summarizes the market analysis.
The project’s primary objective is the comprehensive renovation and expansion of the
Wintershed, an enclosed facility of approximately 10,500 square feet that was built in 1978.
The City has identified approximately $3 million of capital improvement funds for Wintershed
redevelopment; additional sources of funds from public, private or philanthropic sources will be
identified at a later planning stage, if needed.
During the course of the study, the project team and the city identified the following six
goals to guide the project:
x Create an active market district throughout the week and year
x Serve a wide range of customers, including low income families

x Create expanded, modern enclosed facilities that meet the needs of current and future
vendors, as well as the public (including additional restrooms)
x Develop facilities for events and educational programming
x Ensure operational continuity for current vendors
x Expand the number of vending spaces under cover
The recommended development concept should, at minimum, operate on a break-even
basis financially and it should return significant economic impact to the community.
Research methodologies
MVI employed a range of research methodologies for this study, including:

x Key informant interviews. MVI interviewed city officials, Market vendors and adjacent
business owners, and representatives of Friends of the Market.
x Site observations. MVI observed operation of the Rochester Public Market on several days,
including a Saturday in June 2011.
x Focus groups. The project team conducted two focus groups of Market vendors and one
focus group with Market customers.
x Consumer on-line and in-Market survey. MVI designed and implemented an on-line survey
so area residents could provide information about their experiences at the Rochester Public
Market and input into proposed changes. A paper version of this survey was administered at
the Market on one Saturday.
x Report review. MVI reviewed various reports, including:
• “Rochester Public Market Plan” (Nutter Associates, 1996)

• “Study of Rochester Public Market Survey of Customers” (University of Rochester,
2003)
• “Marketview Heights Focused Investment Strategy Area: Situational Analysis”
(2009)
• “The SNAP Market Token Program: A Business Plan for Sustainability” (Holowka
2010)
• “The SNAP Market Token Program: Comprehensive Review & Analysis”
(Holowka, 2011)
x Data analysis. MVI analyzed demographic and food consumption data for the consumer
trade areas and analyzed data from the USDA Census of Agriculture and the US Department
of Commerce for the supply analysis. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics provided
current wage rates in the Rochester area.

3. Market description
Location and facilities
The Rochester Public Market is a gated nine acre district located within the Marketview
Heights neighborhood near downtown, a site it has occupied since 1905. The site is bordered by
Union Street on the west, CSX railroad to the south, Hayward Avenue to the east, and
Pennsylvania Avenue to the north.
City-owned facilities within the Market’s
gates include two open-air sheds (Sheds A and
C), an enclosed “Wintershed” (Shed B), and
separate buildings for the Market office and
public bathrooms (see aerial photo, below).
Plaza and parking areas at the center of the
Market are used for open-air vending, and there
are several small kiosks used for prepared foods.
Privately owned property within the Market’s
gates include a series of buildings called
“Commission Row” that include three produce
wholesalers (who also sell retail under the sheds)
and various food retailers, primarily coffee
houses, bakeries, and an Italian deli. Other
buildings on the south side of the Market include
wholesale distributors of meat, flowers, and
restaurant supplies.

Parking for the Market includes spaces within the gated district and a large parking lot
across Union Street to the west, between Trinidad Street and the railroad. When construction
on this next parking lot is completed, the Market will have about 1,300 total parking spaces.
Marketview Heights is a Focused Investment Strategy (FIS) area, a program the city
initiated in 2008 to markedly improve neighborhoods within a three to five year timeframe by
focusing federal CDBG funding and leveraging other available resources. The Public Market is
identified as a key neighborhood asset that can be leveraged to spur other neighborhood
investment. The FIS priority area includes the Union Street corridor that runs from Main Street
to the south to the railroad overpass at the Public Market border to the north (see map in
Appendix A). 1
Marketview Heights includes over 8,700 residents. In 2000, 66% of the population was
African American and 30% identified as Hispanic. Nearly half of the population was below the
poverty line in 2000 and almost half of residents earned less than $15,000.2
Besides the Public Market, there are no full service grocery stores in the neighborhood
except a Sav-a-Lot in Goodman Plaza (6-7 blocks away).
According to the 2003 University of Rochester study, 4% of customers walk to the
Market so these are likely residents of Marketview Heights.
1 Marketview Heights FIS Situational Analysis, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/fis/

2 Marketview Heights Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy, 2006, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/fis/

Product mix
The Rochester Public Market is

fully leased with over 300 indoor and VendorCategories
outdoor stalls. The Market provides one RochesterPublicMarket
year leases for all spaces – there are no
multiyear tenants. In total, there are 182
leaseholders at the Market. The chart
Specialty
labeled “Vendor Categories” shows the 19% Farmer
percentage of the Market’s 182 vendors
33%
divided into six categories. Farmers Prepared
represent the largest category (33%), foods
followed by specialty food vendors 10%
(including bakery, spices, meat, deli,
Plantsand Produce
etc.) at 19% and general merchandise at Merch
Flowers retail
19%. Retail produce vendors follow at andise
15%
4%
15% and prepared foods at 10%. 19%
Vendors may rent more than one

stand. In Shed A, for example, there are
65 vendors renting 146 spaces, so they average 2.25 spaces per vendor. The 16 vendors
classified as produce resellers lease 46 spaces and have the highest average with 2.88 stalls per
vendor, while the 42 farmers rent 90 spaces, an average of 2.14 spaces per farmer.
Leases provide vendors with the right to sell three days per week: Tuesdays, Thursdays
and Saturdays. Saturday is by far the busiest day, with sales reportedly four times higher than
Thursday. Vendors who wish to sell on Sundays, when the Market runs many special events,
must pay a separate fee.
While the stalls are fully leased, many vendors do not come to the Market every day
throughout the year, both in terms of days of the week and months of the year. Most vendors
choose not to sell on Tuesdays and some do not sell on Thursdays; fewer vendors come in
winter than summer. Management fills empty stands each day with either leaseholders
requesting additional stands (who generally get first priority) or daily vendors. The vendors are
prioritized according to the following list:
1. NYS farmers (leaseholders first then daily farmers)

2. Other foods (leaseholders first then daily vendors)
3. Arts & crafts - all products handmade by the vendor (leaseholders)
4. Prepared foods (leaseholders)
5. General merchandise (leaseholders)
6. Daily arts & crafts
7. Daily prepared foods

8. Daily general merchandise
The Market has four outdoor kiosks with

vendors who sell prepared foods and which operate
with one year land leases (the tenants own all of the
improvements). The kiosk businesses include a Chilean
empanada/fresh juice business (photo right, top), a
Southern BBQ stand, an Eastern European Pierogi
stand, and a sausage stand (photo right, middle). These
businesses set up a few tables and chairs in front of
their businesses and are a consistent source of prepared
foods in the Market, although there can also be daily
vendors who sell prepared foods.
The Wintershed (photo right, bottom) is an
enclosed building constructed in 1978 that allows
vendors to leave equipment and fixtures in place and
which operates according to the same schedule as the
rest of the Market. The Wintershed’s footprint is
10,500 square feet.
There are 34 businesses located in the
Wintershed including meat, fish, baked goods, produce,
deli, coffee, pasta, prepared foods, spices, honey, and
specialty foods. There are currently two nonfood
businesses in the Wintershed selling scarves/jewelry
and incense. The chart to the right, labeled
“Wintershed Vendor Mix,” shows the distribution of
different types of businesses currently in the
Wintershed.
Stalls are only 8’ by 8’ and each has access to a
parking area directly behind the stand through
roll up garage doors. Many vendors take more
than one stall, however. Including the outdoor WintershedVendorMix
kiosks, there are 66 stalls in the Wintershed so
Specialty
there are nearly two stalls per vendor. In terms Baked
food
of number of stalls, the Wintershed is 23% 18%
goods
produce, 18% baked goods, 17% specialty Seafood 20%
foods, 15% meat, 15% prepared foods, 9% 5%
seafood, and 3% nonfood. Meat
Produce 12%
As with the outdoor stands,
18%
management has the right to re-rent a stall
Prepared
within the Wintershed to a daily vendor if the food
leaseholder does not open for business on a Nonfood
22% 5%
particular day. However, since Wintershed
vendors keep their display fixtures within the

building, there is less flexibility than in the outdoor sheds.
Commission Row includes three independent produce wholesalers. These businesses
also rent spaces under the Market sheds and in the Wintershed from the city to sell retail on
Market days. According to the owner of one of the produce wholesalers, while there are
operational challenges to being within the Rochester Public Market for a wholesale produce
business (particularly the old buildings and the
challenges with access and circulation for delivery
trucks), the ability to buy directly from farmers who
come to the Market, to sell to retail vendors, and to
sell retail themselves makes the location viable.
There are not currently any restaurants
along Commission Row although there had been
one in the past. A production bakery (photo right)
sublets some of its space to four prepared food
vendors to sell on Saturdays. There are several
other bakeries, an Italian deli, and two coffee shops,
all with limited days of operation.
Customers
The Market reportedly attracts 2.4 million visitors annually.3 A busy Saturday will
attract a crowd estimated at 40,000 people. Market management reports that customers come
from throughout the region and the Market attracts people of many different ethnicities,
including recent immigrants whose primary language is not English. Casual observation
confirmed a wide range of ages, races, and ethnicities at the Market, and dense crowds of people
on Saturday.
The online consumer survey provides additional information about Market customers,
including demographic information, shopping habits, and ideas for improvements to the Market.
A detailed report has been prepared under separate cover. In general, the people who took the
online survey are younger, wealthier, and less racially diverse than those who took the survey in
the Market and neither survey administration was designed to attract a random sample of the
population.
Nearly all respondents travel more than five minutes to reach the Market, confirming
that the Market serves a small percentage of neighboring residents. While about half travel for
5 to 15 minutes, a large group travels even longer.
Many respondents identified Wegman’s as their principal place to purchase fresh fruits
and vegetables, with half of the online respondents and one-third of paper respondents saying
Wegman’s is their principal shopping source. By comparison, one-third of online respondents
and 41% of paper respondents said the Market is their primary source this time of year
(November/early December). No other supermarket received more than 7%.
A small group of online respondents said they had not visited the Market in the past
year. Their principal reasons for not visiting included the Market’s location, being too busy, the
3 Marketview Heights FIS Situational Analysis, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/fis/

Market’s hours, and no longer living in the Rochester area.
A small customer intercept survey (N=129) conducted by students from the University
of Rochester in fall 2003 found that 53% of customers live in the City of Rochester, 37% live in
surrounding suburbs, 5% live in rural Monroe County, and 5% from elsewhere. By comparison,
the in-Market consumer survey, conducted at the end of November, found that 73% live in
Rochester, 26% outside Rochester, and only 1% out of state.
Since most of the Market is open air and much of the product comes from local farms, it
is logical that the Market is busiest during the summer and early fall. The intercept survey
asked customers what months they visit the Market (the survey was conducted in September
and October so the answers reflect only those customers who shop during those months). The
resulting answers demonstrate the seasonality of the Market and the peak period between June
and October:
MonthsVisittheMarket
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
The consumer survey asked this question a bit differently, asking what time periods
customers had visited the Market in the past twelve months. Among those surveyed in the
Market, nearly 60% had visited in the winter months (January through March). On-line
respondents were less likely to have visited in this period although 40% said they had been there
in the winter:

Inthepast12months,whichtimeperiodshaveyouvisitedtheRochesterPublicMarket?
Checkallappropriateboxes.

Seasons
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% Paper
40% Online
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan Mar Apr Jun July Sep Oct Dec
In the U of R study, a third of the customers reported that they visit the Market once a
week or more, while another 27% said two or three times a month. Therefore, 60% of
customers can be considered regular shoppers because they visit the Market more than once per
month. Another 19% reported coming once per month. The online survey addressed frequency
of visit in a different way, asking how many times the respondents had visited the Market in the
past three months. About a quarter of respondents reported coming 11 or more times in the past
three months, or about once per week.
Inthepast3months,howmanytimeshaveyouvisitedtheRochesterPublicMarket?
VisitstoRPM
inPast3Months
50%
40%
30%
Paper
20% Online
10%
0%
0 1 5 6 10 11 15 16+

If the redeveloped Wintermarket is open more frequently, converting these regular

customers into even more frequent shoppers will be a key element of the facility’s success, as

will encouraging customers to come more consistently throughout the year, not just during the
peak five month period.
Management and vendors report that Thursdays have become increasingly busy as some
customers have found Saturdays too crowded. Parking is much easier during the week and
some customers, particularly young mothers pushing baby strollers, are convening at the Market
when the aisles are not as hard to navigate because of the crowds.
As is typical at public markets, visiting the Rochester Public Market is a social
experience: most customers come with others. Two-thirds of the customers in the U of R study
always or often come with someone else. Only 13% reported always coming alone. The online
study found that about 27% of shoppers generally come alone but the majority come with
family or friends.
While many customers report attending the Public Market for decades, other customers
have found the Market more recently. The University of Rochester survey found that 15% of
customers had been attending the Rochester Public Market for one year or less, and nearly 60%
had been attending for ten years or less. The majority of customers on a given day are therefore
not long time visitors but rather more recent devotees. The online survey found that about 5%
of visitors first began visiting in the past year but nearly half of the respondents starting coming
more than ten years ago. The largest group of respondents who took the survey in the Market
reported first visiting six to ten years ago.
When asked what days of the week they had visited the Public Market district in the past
three months, over 80% of the online respondents said Saturday but only 30% said Thursday
and 13% said Tuesday. A slightly higher percentage (16%) had visited on a Sunday.
Converting these respondents to mid-week shoppers will be a key element in making the Market
district busy throughout the week.
Inthepast3months,whatdaysoftheweekhaveyouvisitedtheRochesterPublicMarket
district?Checkallappropriateboxes


Online survey respondents, and to a greater extent current Market customers shoppers,
are generally satisfied with their recent visits to the Market and are extremely likely to
recommend the Market to others. On a scale from one to ten, with ten be “extremely likely,”
97% of in-Market customers said they were very likely to recommend the Market to others
(score of 9 or 10), compared to 80% of online respondents.
Digging deeper into consumer satisfaction, the online survey posed a series a questions
that asked respondents to rate the Market on various attributes, using a scale from one to five.
The Market scored very high on quality, value, variety and prices. Interestingly, the Market
scored slightly higher for “lower prices and bargains” among online respondents, perhaps
reflecting its reputation as a low-price food environment particularly when compared to the
Market’s primary competition, Wegman’s. Respondents from lower income households rated
the quality of products at the Market more highly than upper income respondents. Not
surprisingly, frequent shoppers (those who reported shopping at the Market at least six times in
the past three months) rated the Market more highly than less frequent shoppers in nearly every
category.
The Market scored highly among the next series of comparisons, ranking very high for
“Feels like shopping in an authentic market” and “better availability of locally grown products,”
as well as “More fun to shop here.” The Market scored lower for being clean.
The Market scored lower, and there was more variation between the two groups of
respondents, for the next set of comparisons. Respondents (and particularly online respondents)
compared the Market less favorably for “Easy to move about” and “Adequate parking is
available.” Less frequent shoppers rated the parking at 2.7 compared to frequent shoppers at
3.2. Personal safety at the Market and feeling their car is secure ranked fairly high for both sets.
RPMRatings3
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 Paper
2.0
Online
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Easytofind Easytoget Easytomove Feelsafe Adequate Feelcaris
whatwant there about walking parking secure/safe
Respondents were told that Rochester Public Market was exploring the potential for
creating more indoor vending space and increasing the days of operation. They were then asked
to rate on a scale from one (Not at all interested) to five (Extremely interested), how interested
they would be in various items being offered at RPM.

All of the suggested changes rated higher than three, the midpoint. Paper respondents
showed higher interest in all of the suggested changes for the Market. For the first set of
questions in the chart below, they scored “Additional ethnic foods” and “Local music
performances” most highly.
TheRochesterPublicMarketisexploringthepotentialforcreatingmoreindoorvendingspace
andincreasingthedaysofoperationtoencouragelocalresidentstovisitthroughouttheweek
andduringthewinter.Pleaseindicateyourlevelofinterestinhavingeachitembelow
availableattheMarket.
NewItems1
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50 Paper
2.00
Online
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Add'lethnic Add'lpublic Cookingdemos Indoorseating Localmusic
foods gatheringspaces areas performances

In the second group of questions, there was strong interest for more storefront businesses
and for the Market to be open on Sundays. There was less interest for the Market to be open on
Fridays, particularly among online respondents. There is a statistically significant relationship
between employment status and interest in Friday hours: full time workers were less interested
in Friday hours than non-full time workers (mean of 3.2 compared to 3.9). Upper income
households were less interested in Sunday hours, with a mean of 3.8 compared to lower income
households with a mean of 4.5 and middle income households with a mean of 4.0.
Interestingly, infrequent shoppers were more interested in seeing Sunday hours (mean of 4.1)
compared to frequent shoppers (mean of 3.8). Similarly, infrequent shoppers were more
interested in having more storefront businesses (mean of 4.3) compared to frequent shoppers
(mean of 4.0). This suggests that infrequent shoppers might shop more regularly if the Market
had Sunday hours and more storefronts.

NewItems2
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00 Paper
1.50 Online
1.00
0.50
0.00
More Morestorefront OpenFridays OpenSundays
restaurants/ foodbusinesses
preparedfoods

Respondents were asked to list up to three additional products as well as three specific
Rochester area food businesses they would like to see offered at the Market. Information from
both data sets was combined for this question. The responses were organized into 14 categories
with ethnic foods and a butcher/deli topping the list.
AdditionalProductsforRPM
EthnicFoods
SpecialtyFoods
Butcher/Deli
Wine/Beer
BakedGoods
BulkGroceries
Produce
Dairy
OrganicProduce
Seafood
GrassFed/OrganicMeats
OtherNonFood
Arts&Crafts
Clothing
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Respondents were asked what they feel are the biggest challenges or problems facing the
Market and their ideas for improving it. The most prominent concerns and ideas for
improvement were related to parking and accessibility. Numerous respondents said that limited
parking was a major deterrent for them even attempting to visit the Market. Some said if they
did not arrive by 7 am there would be no parking available. Increasing accessibility to the
Market through public transportation and making the Market more pedestrian and biker friendly
were common suggestions for addressing the parking problem. Several respondents suggested
shutting down the neighboring streets to cars during the summer and/or on weekends.
In addition to parking, the most common themes for challenges were:
x Strollers and crowds of people blocking the aisles and making it difficult to access
vendors
x Too cold in the Wintershed during the winter
x Too many ”junk” vendors
x Too many non-local food vendors
x Poor quality of produce from wholesalers
x Limited hours
x Safety of surrounding neighborhood (some respondents felt these concerns were
warranted while others felt it was more of a perception problem)
Many of the above themes were reiterated as ideas for improvement: expanding the size
of the Market, heating the Wintershed to make it more pleasant during the winter, decreasing
the number of produce wholesalers and “junk” vendors, increasing the number of local vendors
and extending the hours of operation. Some other themes for improvement included:
x Provide maps or offer tours of the Market so shoppers know what products are available
x Distinguish between local and non-local vendors with clear signage
x Increase advertisement of RPM through local media to attract suburban shoppers
x More public seating options
x Organize Market by type of vendor: separate food vendors from non-food vendors and
separate seafood from produce vendors
The additional comments were generally positive. Most respondents took the
opportunity to express their love and appreciation for the Market. Several people stated that the
Market is the reason they do not move away from Rochester. Many respondents were also
concerned that improvements might “commercialize” the Market. Respondents clearly
appreciate the “rawness” of the Market and want to maintain the current atmosphere. There was
also a great deal of appreciation for Market management and improvements already made.
Participants in the customer focus group represented predominately long time and
consistent shoppers at the Market. They identified a variety of reasons why they attend the

Market, including social aspects, affordability, availability of organic products, support for local
businesses, the diversity of goods, and knowledge they get from vendors about how to prepare
what they buy. In general, customers like the Public Market the way it is and do not want to see
if “modernized” or changed significantly.
Customers in the focus group mentioned that they go into the Wintershed only if they
“have to” because the space is difficult to navigate and they do not like the smells and the
crowded aisles. Some avoid going into the Wintershed at all during the summer months.
Customers want to see physical improvements to the Wintershed that will make it a better
shopping experience but they are concerned that changes could have a negative impact on
vendors. Observation of the Wintershed on a Saturday confirmed that the aisle is narrow and
becomes easily congested, especially when shoppers have strollers, shopping carts, or come in
wheelchairs.
Participants in the focus group had the following other comments:
x They felt that the prepared food vendors should be accessible to the outside, not just an
indoor “food court” environment
x Some were concerned about expanding the Market too much and felt that it should grow
“organically.” They also thought that working with the private sector to increase vending
space would be a good way to expand the Market.
x Customers liked the idea of creating a demonstration kitchen, making it a destination within
the Market and a place for schools to come as part of Market visit. They felt that tour or
educational groups should not come on Saturday because the Market is already crowded.
Management
The Rochester Public Market is owned by the City of Rochester and operated through its
Division of Recreation and Youth Services. One administrator spends about one-half of his
time on the Market. Dedicated on-site staff includes:
x Market Supervisor – full-time

x Market Assistant - full-time in the summer and part-time in the winter
x Special Events Coordinator – part time (20 hours per week)
x Maintenance Director – full-time
x Grounds Crew – full-time in the summer and part-time in the winter
The Market contracts for security services, which are provided seven days per week,
from 5 pm until 5 am on Monday through Friday and 24 hours per day Saturday, Sunday and
holidays. On Market days, the Market hires 10 or more security staff on Saturdays and four on
Thursdays to help with traffic control and to provide security.
The Public Market helped create a ‘Friends of the Market’ organization in 2003 leading
up to the Market’s 100th Anniversary in 2005. The group, which consists of six board members
and 25 volunteers, was incorporated in 2007. Their mission is to provide advocacy,

promotional assistance, and interpretative and educational programs related to the Market’s
operation and history. The group is very active and has its own web site,
www.marketfriends.org. The Friends sells Market merchandise, conducts tours through the
Market, provides a school age educational curriculum focusing on math and science skills, and
runs events, including the increasingly popular Artist Row, which takes place on a Sunday in
September.
The Friends successfully secured a $100,000 federal grant to create a trolley that drives
customers from the outer parking lot. The Friends run the Market’s well-used EBT Token
program. The group is interested in running additional educational programs and seeks to have
a demonstration kitchen and meeting space developed at the Market.
Marketing
As with many public markets, marketing at the Rochester Public Market is focused
around special events. Major annual events include:
x Community Garage Sales and Superfleas (18 Sundays from April to October)
x Flower Days at the Market (5 Sundays plus the Friday and Monday of Memorial Day
Weekend)
x Tastings with Margaret
x Chef's Days at the Market
x Night Markets, Bands on the Bricks (8 events in 2011)
x Artists Row (organized by Friends of the Public Market)
x Holidays at the Market
x Savor Rochester Festival of Food (organized by Foodlink, a local social service agency)
All told, there are 51 events during the year which happen on days when the Market is
not operating. These are done to bring activity to the Market district, not to draw customers to
the core market days.
The City of Rochester hosts a web site for the Market (www.cityofrochester.gov/
publicmarket/) and publishes a quarterly newsletter called Market Matters! There is also an
active “Friends of the Public Market: Rochester, NY” page on Facebook with 9,400 friends.
Finance
Stall rents vary by location, with higher rents charged for the indoor Wintershed and the
four kiosks. The chart below summarizes the rents. While farmers and other fresh food
vendors receive preference in terms of access to stalls, rent levels only vary between prepared
food vendors and all others. The daily rents reflect the amounts that are charged during the
summer months. The Market also offers seasonal (summer or winter) options.

Wintershed leaseholders have access to their stalls three days per week, year round.
Therefore, there are 156 selling days in the year (52 weeks times 3 days per week). Dividing
$2,575 by 156, the daily rental fee is $16.51. On a square foot basis, annual rents are $35.76
($2,575 divided by 72 square feet.) These rents include electricity. On a square foot basis, this
can be considered a substantial rent for this area of town but this calculation does not include
any of the common areas or the services (such as marketing and waste removal) that
independent businesses normally pay directly.
To compare rents in a public market to rents an independent small food business would
need to pay in a typical storefront, the per square foot cost in the public market needs to be
divided in half to be approximately equivalent. Therefore, Wintershed rent at $36 per square
foot would be equivalent to paying $18 per square foot in a neighboring storefront. According
to interviews with businesses on Commission Row, rents are currently $10 per sf. A major
difference here, however, is that the size of Wintershed stalls is so small so a direct comparison
is difficult.
Income from Market operations surpasses operating expenses, so the Public Market
operates on a positive cash flow basis. The Market does not have any real estate or capital
costs. Rents account for the vast majority (89%) of income. Finance charges and snowplowing
account for 5% each and a small fraction (1%) comes from special event revenues.
As with most public markets, the largest operating expense relates to personnel at 76%
of expenses. These include administrative fees, on-site personnel, and security. A small
fraction goes to marketing (2%) and the remaining 22% is for direct costs of operations:
utilities, waste removal, janitorial, maintenance and supplies.
4. Best practices
Key factors for success
Based on its study of comparable public markets around the country for more than 20
years, MVI has identified five key criteria that are present at successful public markets. Best
practices support these five criteria.
1. Great site. Like all retail, location is a critical factor. While not every successful public
market might have the following site characteristics, a great market site is:

• Easily accessible to the entire region and to tourists (physically and psychologically)
• Visible from highways or major thoroughfares
• Has easy circulation around and through the site
• Provides pedestrian access and generally is in close proximity to downtown
• Able to be phased so the market can expand over time
• Has lots of convenient parking, ideally free and at-grade
• Offers a supportive context of other independent local businesses nearby, including
food-related businesses and restaurants, and room for an outdoor farmers’ market and
public spaces
Access to the Rochester Public Market is challenging because the Market is not adjacent
to a highway or major thoroughfare. This makes attracting tourists and area residents not
familiar with the location more difficult. Fortunately, the Market has been operating for many
decades and it is well known to people throughout the region, and there are numerous signs
around Rochester that direct people to the Market. The benefit of being well established can be
seen in the University of Rochester study survey found that 15% of customers had been
attending the Rochester Public Market for one year or less, and nearly 60% had been attending
for ten years or less, so it is clear new customers are aware of and have been able to find the
Market. The rapidly increasing attendance numbers also indicate that more and more people
have been drawn to the Market in recent years.
The city has made significant additions to customer parking. When the new parking lot
on Trinidad Street is completed, there will be 1,300 free, on-grade parking spaces at the Market.
The people-mover trolley brings customers from the outer parking lots, improving the
convenience of these spaces. Free, convenient parking is a necessity to attract customers
because supermarkets have set this as the standard.
Customer and vehicular circulation around and through the site becomes congested on
busy shopping days. Currently there are limited options for moving between the sheds and from
the sheds to Commission Row. Cars get stuck behind trucks and other cars. The security force
focuses on this issue during busy Market days.
The businesses along Commission Row and a few on Railroad Street provide the
supportive context for the city-owned and operated facilities. There are relatively few retail
businesses on Commission Row and their hours of retail operation are limited. Giordano
Imports European Cheese Shop, for example, is open only on Thursdays for three hours (10 am
until 1 pm) and closes fairly early on Saturdays (5:30 am until 2 pm). Similarly, Boulder
Coffee Company is only open on Thursdays and Saturdays at the Market (just Saturdays
between September and April) while it is open seven days per week at its other three Rochester
locations. Other businesses along Commission Row include active bakeries and a coffee
roaster, as well as produce wholesalers. To achieve the city’s goal of making the Market an
active place throughout the week, these permanent storefront businesses provide a key to more
consistent activity.
Outside the Market gates, Railroad Street is evolving toward more supportive uses,

particularly with the events that occur at Rohrbach Brewing. Trinidad Street will become more
important with the addition of Market customer parking in that area and there is one building on
the corner of Union and Trinidad currently undergoing redevelopment.
2. Environment. Public market architecture includes both the building environment and the
design and layout of each tenant space. Historically, cities have perceived their public markets
as important works of civic architecture and therefore many historic public markets are
impressive and beautiful structures. A great public market environment is:
• A place people want to be and a comfortable public space that welcomes all elements of
the community
• A landmark structure
• A facility with well designed stalls and infrastructure that supports small food retailers
• A place that offers a rich sensory experience of sights, sounds, smells, and tastes
• A facility that offers customer amenities such as comfortable seating areas and clean
restrooms
• On the cutting edge of sustainability, including green construction elements, energy
efficiency, waste minimization, composting/recycling, and education
The Rochester Public Market shows some of these characteristics and can make
improvements with others. Clearly the Market is a place that people want to be on Saturdays,
when thousands of people from all walks of life and throughout the region congregate at the
Market. Thursdays have gained in popularity and the Market is often busy then as well. On
these days the Market shines as a welcoming place that reflects the diversity of the community.
On other days, the district is very quiet. Many of the storefront businesses on Commission Row
only open on Thursday and Saturday (and some only on Saturday), and the Market sheds are
empty the other days of the week.
The Market currently
offers limited seating options
and other customer public
space amenities. Some
businesses along Commission
Row have worked with the city
to create fenced-in seating
areas (photo, right) and the
food kiosks have stand-up
tables and a few seats around
their businesses. The Market
offers a few picnic tables around the office.
Architecturally, the Public Market is a mix of eclectic historic storefronts along
Commission Row and the city’s well maintained sheds and offices, along with utilitarian
structures that house wholesale functions such as the Tripi Foods/Big Apple Building (photo,
below). Recent city investments created the entrance gates, which help define the Market

environment. The Wintershed
is among the least attractive
buildings on the Market and, of
course, the subject of the
renovation project.
Improvements to the
Wintershed are meant to
address a number of the issues
where the Market has room for
improvement, including the need for well designed stalls and infrastructure that will support
small food retailers, the need for additional restrooms and improved seating areas, and the need
for educational facilities. An investment in the Wintershed also offers the opportunity to
improve the building’s appearance, particularly by creating greater transparency between inside
and out.
3. Culture of public market shopping. Communities throughout the country are awakening
to the benefits of buying locally grown foods. Some communities have developed a culture of
public market shopping, with residents going out of their way to purchase locally grown food
and willing to make it a spending priority.
Residents in Rochester have shown great support for the Public Market as its popularity
has grown dramatically over the past twenty years. This support is clearly evident on Saturdays
and to a less extent on Thursdays; Tuesdays are not nearly as popular. There has also been a
major growth in the number of seasonal farmers’ markets in the region. As the city considers
expanding the Wintershed, key informants questioned whether residents will make public
market shopping a daily habit, particularly when there are such strong supermarkets in the area.
The popularity of the Market is somewhat due to its special event, destination atmosphere.
4. Professional management. Well run public markets require skilled professional managers
who focus on helping the market achieve its mission, supporting the vendors, and ensuring
customers have a positive shopping experience. Some of the critical roles that management
plays include:
• Property management (including cleaning, security, maintenance, financial

management, and lease and rules enforcement)
• Customer service
• Vendor recruitment
• Small business assistance and vendor training
• Marketing (including advertising, special events/promotions, public relations, education,
Internet, and consumer research)
The Rochester Public Market has a passionate and dedicated management staff that has
gained deep operational experience through running the Market for many years. The staff has
strong customer service skills which it uses to foster positive relationships with both vendors

and the public. With community partners like the Friends of Rochester Public Market, the
Market runs a very successful SNAP token program, educational programs, and many special
events.
The current management staff has not run a daily market hall which, while sharing many
similarities with the existing Wintershed, has some differences if the market becomes the
permanent home of tenants. These can include more intensive recruitment efforts to find
interested and qualified vendors to meet a proposed tenant mix and more regular marketing to
change consumer patterns to shop at the Market more frequently.
5. High quality vendors. The most important determinant of a public market’s long term
success is the quality of its vendors. Once the developer of a public market has “set the stage”
for the public market in terms of its site, facility and management team, it is the vendors who
become “the show.” Their ability to offer high quality and unique products, as well as superior
services, will determine whether a sufficient customer base is established over time. The
presence of bona fide farmers and food producers within a public market, selling items they
produce themselves, differentiates the experience of shopping at a public market from other
retail venues.
The Rochester Public Market has many long time vendors

who come faithfully to the Market every week and have
developed strong customer relationships. As described above, the
Market offers a wide range of food products, and the vendors in
the Wintershed are particularly diverse. The large number of
vendors creates strong internal competition, helping keep prices
low and encouraging the vendors toward product specialization.
The proximity to the wholesale produce houses provides a
convenient steady stream of low cost fresh food and low overhead
costs underpin the low prices in the Market. Customers have
many vendors from whom to select.
Expansion of the Wintershed offers the opportunity to bring additional products into the
Public Market and to add food production and cooking. Redevelopment also offers the
opportunity to improve product displays and have better equipment, while creating a consistent
operating schedule with all vendors required to be open during advertised hours of operation.
City Market, Kansas City
City Market, an historic public market in downtown Kansas City, has recently gone
through a significant redevelopment process. Its experiences offer insights that can help inform
potential changes to the Rochester Public Market, particularly its experience winterizing one of
its historic market sheds.
City Market shares many similarities with the Rochester Public Market as well as some
important differences. Like the Rochester Public Market, City Market includes open farmer
sheds adjacent to permanent retail businesses. The farmers’ market operates two days per week,
on Saturdays and Sundays (other days of the week have been attempted but were not adequately

successful to continue). In terms of important differences, City Market is owned by local
government but managed by a private real estate management firm under contract to the city.
City Market is located adjacent to the downtown core, not amidst a low income residential
neighborhood. City Market is active throughout the week, including at night, because of many
permanent and fresh and prepared food businesses and many restaurants. Photographs of City
Market are found in Appendix B.
City Market has operated from the same location since 1857. It covers an area of nearly
11 acres and includes 150,000 square feet of permanent retail and restaurant space, 146 farmers’
market stalls, eight residential units, and 35,000 of steamboat museum space, as well as 600 on-
site parking spaces. Most of the current buildings were constructed in 1939, modernized in
1986, and rehabbed in 1990. The farmers’ market takes place under three shed pavilions at the
center of a market square. City Market is one of the most popular destinations in the region,
attracting more than 700,000 visitors per year.
City Market leases 46 spaces within storefront buildings and operates three open
pavilions. Among the leaseholders, there are 8 fresh food businesses, 10 restaurants, 13
nonfood businesses and a museum, and nine offices on second stories. The Market also leases
eight apartments and has five vacancies. They are building a
shared commercial kitchen in one of the vacant retail spaces.
In the pavilions, the Market has 35 farmers selling
produce, 26 other food and agricultural businesses, 20 vendors of
crafts, and 8 miscellaneous (including three fast food concession
carts).
The fairly large number of restaurants is influenced by
City Market’s location adjacent to the downtown core. The
Market attracts office workers at lunch time and is also a popular
destination in the evening throughout the week.
In 2004, the Market decided to remove all resellers from
the pavilions (one-third of the vendors) in order to focus on
farmers and food producers. Management reports that the
community did not raise a significant objection. Market management has worked hard to attract
more farmers to the Market, particularly on Sundays, and has recently focused on recruiting
Asian immigrant farmers from the Joplin area. The Market continues to struggle with attracting
vendors during the weekdays. On Sundays, the Market holds a popular Community Yard Sale,
which attracts 35-40 vendors and about 20 farmers who sell from under the pavilions.
In 2006, the Market winterized one of the historic pavilions by installing permanent
glass enclosures on the two ends and garage doors along the sides. The shed has outlets for
electricity at each stall. Radiant heat allows vendors to operate comfortably in this pavilion
during the winter. Management closes the garage doors in November and reopens them in
April. This eliminates the question of whether to raise or lower them on a particular day – they
are either always up or always down. The space is used for events, festivals, or parking when it
is not used by vendors.

5. Customer Demand Analysis
The purpose of the customer demand analysis is to quantify the potential demand for
fresh and prepared foods at the Rochester Public Market and to identify the targeted customers
for the facility. The quantitative demand analysis consists of defining the market’s trade areas,
evaluating the demographics of the residents of the different trade areas, and analyzing buying
behavior in order to estimate potential expenditures for the different products that might be sold
in the Market based on comparable facilities. MVI also performed qualitative analysis in the
form of key informant interviews and customer focus groups.
Trade areas
Based on input from the key

informants, review of previous
studies, and typical shopping patterns
at other public markets, three
separate trade areas were defined for
the Rochester Public Market, using
the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue
and Union Street as the center point.
The three trade areas are:
1. The first trade area represents

the 2 mile ring around the Public
Market. This ring reaches
almost to Route 590 to the east,
just past Interstate 490 to the
south, nearly to Dewet Avenue
in the west (including the Inner
Loop) and just past Route 104 to
the north. The Public Market is
easily accessible for residents in
this trade area: many are able to
walk to the Market and for
others it is a short drive, bike
ride, or bus trip. There is little
competition for fresh food in
this area so the Public Market is
the most convenient choice for
many residents living in this 2
mile ring.
2. The second trade area represents
the band between the 2 mile and
5 mile ring. This band reaches
to Scribner Road to the east,

includes the town of
Brighton and runs just past
Interstate 390 in the south
and west and stretches to the
shores of Lake Ontario in
the north. The Market is
reasonably convenient to
residents and workers in this
area although there are
numerous other places to
buy fresh food, including
high quality supermarkets
such as Wegman’s.
3. The third area is the band
between 5 and 25 miles,
which incorporates
approximately all of Monroe County, stretching from the town of Clyde to the east,
Genesco to the south and almost to Albion in the west. Based on our research at numerous
public markets, this band area represents a large but not unusual extended catchment area
for a successful public market. In general, customers from this trade area have made the
Market their destination: it is not a convenient food shopping choice but they are drawn to
the qualities of the Market.
In addition to these trade areas, the demand analysis also includes estimates of potential
patronage by tourists, defined as anyone who lives outside the 25 mile ring.
According to research that Market Ventures, Inc. has conducted at other markets, public
markets typically attract a wide range of shoppers in terms of age, ethnicity, and income level.
In general, families buy more fresh food than individuals or people living in unrelated
households, and households with higher income levels ($75,000 and above) are more frequent
shoppers and spend more than people with lower incomes. Educational attainment is also an
important indicator of interest in fresh, locally grown or produced foods. The highest spending
customer is typically a 40 to 55 year old woman. What is unique about public markets,
however, is their ability to appeal to both the highest income shoppers and lower income
shoppers. While higher income shoppers might be drawn by unique products, superior quality
and the ethic of buying locally grown foods, lower income and elderly shoppers appreciate the
ability to purchase smaller quantities, the ability to negotiate with empowered owners, the
availability of ethnic specialties, and competitive prices.
At some public markets the relationship between high household income and high
expenditures does not hold true, particularly at historic inner city markets that feature low
priced products and a product mix geared to these consumers. Research conducted at the
historic Lexington Market in Baltimore, for example, found that shoppers who reported
household income of $75,000 or more spent the least ($21.50 on average) while those with the
lowest incomes (under $25,000) spent $28.00 on average. Higher income consumers are
generally attracted by the availability of high quality, locally produced products that are not
available elsewhere. Lower income shoppers are attracted by low prices as well as culturally
appropriate foods, and inner city public markets are sometimes their only convenient shopping

options. The Rochester Public Market appears to appeal to both consumer segments: those
looking for deals and those looking for local and unusual products who are willing to pay more.
Demographic data about the three trade areas were acquired from Nielseon/Claritas, a
national market research data company. The acquired data include 2000 U.S. Census
information, estimates developed by Nielsen/Claritas for 2011, and projections for 2016 (data
from the 2010 Census are just now becoming available and are not yet available for the three
geographies examined in this analysis). Data from the three trade areas are summarized in the
chart below. Each band is independent – only the “total” section aggregates the three bands:
2 mile ring 2-5 mile band 5-25 mile band Total

Population 2000 census 111,341 209,735 552,968 874,044
Population 2011 estimate 102,648 198,066 566,234 866,948
Population 2016 projection 99,787 194,253 571,878 865,918
Population change 2000-2011 -7.8% -5.6% 2.4% -0.8%
Population change 2011-2016 (%) -2.8% -1.9% 1.0% -0.1%
Population change 2011-2016 -2,861 -3,813 5,644 -1,030
Racial diversity (% non-white) 58.0% 34.5% 7.9% 17.2%
Percent Hispanic 2011 20.3% 7.0% 2.4% 8.4%
Households 2011 43,691 79,685 213,105 336,481
Average household size 2.25 2.35 2.56 2.5
Median age 33.9 38.8 40.2 36.0
Average household income 2011 $37,998 $56,975 $75,066 $65,968
Ave. household income 2016 est. $38,268 $57,636 $76,437 $67,028
Change HH income 2011-2016 0.71% 1.16% 1.83% 1.61%
Household income >$75,000/yr 4,987 18,699 80,853 104,539
Household income >$75,000/yr 11.4% 23.5% 37.9% 31.1%
Per capita income $16,688 $23,343 $28,623 $68,654
Families below poverty line 29.9% 13.0% 4.0% 5.5%
Family households 48% 59% 72% 65.6%
Age 35-64 37.3% 38.7% 41.9% 40.6%
No Vehicles 28.6% 13.9% 4.4% 9.8%
Bachelor's Degree 14.9% 17.4% 20.9% 19.4%
Master's, Professional or Doctorate 10.1% 15.3% 14.2% 14.0%
The Rochester MSA, which includes five counties, had a population of slightly over one

million people in 2010, while Monroe County had a population of 744,344 and the City of
Rochester 210,565.4
Trade area 1: Two mile ring

The estimated 2011 population for the 2 mile radius is 102,648 people, which represents
a significant decrease (7.8%) from the 2000 Census count of 111,341. (The official US Census
population of Rochester dropped from 219,773 in 2000 to 210,565 in 2010, a 4.2% decrease5).
The population is expected to continue its decrease by 2,861 people, or 2.8%, by 2016, to
99,787 people. This trend is similar to the second trade area, which decreased 5.6% from 2000
to 2011 and is expected to shrink an additional 1.9% by 2016. For the United States as a whole,
the population is expected to grow 4.0% in the next five years. In general, a decreasing
population means fewer mouths to feed and increasing competitive pressure with other existing
food stores.
The trade area had 43,691 households in 2011, with an average household size of 2.25
people, which is below the national average of 2.60. Only 48% of these households are
families, compared to a national average of 68%. Typically, small household size and small
percentage of families would suggest lower than average purchases at a public market.
The median age of the population, at 33.9, is well below the national median of 37.0,
which is driven in part by the many universities in Rochester. The percentage of the population
in the targeted age range of 35 to 64 is 37.3% which is slightly lower than the other two trade
areas which are 38.7% and 41.9%.
Household incomes in this
area are very low compared to both Averagehouseholdincome
the other trade areas and the national
average. This is due, in part, to the 2011
small household sizes and the large $80,000
percentage of students in this area, $70,000
although much of the low household $60,000
income is a reflection of the $50,000
significant areas of poverty within the $40,000
city. Average household income in $30,000
Trade Area 1 is $37,998, compared to $20,000
$56,975 in the second tier and $10,000
$75,066 in the third tier. Per capita $0
income is only $16,688, compared to 2milering 25mband 525mile USA
$23,343 in the second trade area and band
$25,728 nationally. Only 11.4% of
the population has household income above $75,000, compared to 23.5% in the second trade
area and 37.9% in the third.
This area is the most racially diverse of the three trade areas at 58% nonwhite, which is
much higher than the national average of 28%. The percentage of the population of Hispanic
descent is 20.3%, well above than the national average of 16.1%.
4 www.2010census.gov/2010census
5 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3663000.html

Educational attainment has
been shown to have a strong EducationalAttainment
correlation with higher spending for
quality food. The percentage of 40.0%
residents 25 years or older with a 35.0%
bachelor’s degree (14.9%) is lower 30.0%
than the national average (17.5%) but
25.0%
the percentage of residents with a
master’s, professional, or doctorate 20.0%
degree is exactly the same at 10.1%. 15.0%
A significant percentage of 10.0%
households in this trade area has no 5.0%
vehicle (28.6%), compared to 13.9% in
0.0%
the second area and 4.4% in the third.
2milering 25mband 525mile USA
Members of these households will band
therefore need to rely on walking,
public transportation, taxis, or rides Bachelor'sDegree Master's,ProfessionalorDoctorate
from family or friends in order to get to
the Market. Convenience is therefore likely to be a very important factor that determines their
shopping venue.
Based on the demographic profile of area residents and typical expenditure patterns as
determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey, Nielsen/Claritas
estimates the retail sales potential for consumer goods for a geographic area. Using their
estimated per capita expenditures for various food items, Nielsen/Claritas creates a Food
Purchasing Index that compares local expected purchases to national averages on the household
level. In any category, a score of 100 means that households within the defined trade area are
expected to buy the same as the national household average. If households in the targeted trade
area are expected to purchase less of a particular product, the index will be less than one
hundred. Conversely, if they are expected to buy more of a certain item, the index will be more
than one hundred. For example, if households in the trade area are expected to buy on average
$1,200 worth of baked goods per year and the national average is $1,000 per household, then
the index would be 120.
For each of the three trade areas, the food purchasing indices for 2011 are:
2011 Estimate 2 mile ring 2-5 mile band 5-25 mile band
Food at Home – overall 81 95 110
Food away from Home – overall 66 85 106
Market Categories
Baked goods 82 99 115
Dairy 82 98 116
Meat 86 96 109
Poultry 106 107 111

Prepared foods 72 89 108
Produce – fresh 75 90 106
Seafood – fresh 62 74 86
Specialty food (jams, jellies) 72 92 113
Sweets 75 98 120
Beverages – nonalcoholic 77 89 104
Beer 84 103 122
Wine 69 93 111
For nearly all products, the index scores are substantially below one hundred in the first
trade area, suggesting that household expenditures will be below national averages. Poultry is
the only index score over the national average at 106.
Typically, the preponderance of low incomes (and therefore lack of disposable income),
small household sizes, and younger residents are all indicators that residents in this trade area
will not be likely users of a daily market hall that features unique and potentially more
expensive foods. There is a small pool of higher income households (11% with income more
than $75,000, or about 5,000 households) in this trade area, as well as 10% with advanced
degrees. These residents are more likely to shop for high quality, unique items within a market
hall.
However, the Rochester Public Market currently serves many low income consumers
because it has evolved into a large scale, high volume, low priced marketplace in close
proximity to many urban residents. The lack of fresh food stores within the city makes the
Market convenient for many residents.
The rapid growth of the SNAP token program at the Market shows evidence of the
potential for attracting low income families. The program has grown from $59,000 in token
sales in 2008 to more than $350,000 in 2010, and the program is on track to record about
$500,000 in sales in 2011. In 2010, nearly 5,000 people on average redeemed some of their
SNAP allocation for Market tokens each Saturday. Remarkably, this growth has occurred
without a substantial marketing campaign. Research conducted in 2010 found low awareness of
the token program among all major racial/ethnic groups interviewed. Market signage and word
of mouth were the almost exclusive sources of information about the token program.6
Increased marketing and operational improvements to handle increased volumes could
drive significant new purchases from SNAP program beneficiaries. Nationally, SNAP
enrollment is growing quickly, with 32 straight months of program growth since November
2008. One-seventh of the country’s entire population, 45.7 million people, received SNAP
benefits in May 2011, the highest level in history.7 In 2010, 104,000 people in Monroe County
received SNAP benefits yet only 4% shopped at the Market. The $350,000 in token sales
recorded at the Market in 2010 provides a substantial boost for vendor sales, yet it represents
6 “The SNAP Market Token Program: Comprehensive Review & Analysis,” Friends of the Rochester Public
Market, 2010, p. 25.
7 Foodlinks America – August 26, 2011, California Emergency Foodlink, http://www.tefapalliance.org/

only a tiny fraction (2.3%) of the nearly $152 million in food stamp dollars spent in Monroe
County.8 Low income consumers who receive SNAP benefits, many of whom live within the
city, are a strong potential source of new customers for the Market; the preponderance of fresh
fruits and vegetables sold at the Market are also a boon for these families’ diets, since poorer
people suffer disproportionately from diet-related diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.
The two mile trade area also includes downtown workers. These workers might visit the
Public Market at lunchtime and potentially on the way home after work.
Trade area 2: Area between 2 mile ring and 5 mile ring

According to Nielsen/Claritas, the area between the 2 mile and a 5 mile ring was home
to 209,735 people in 2000 and is estimated to drop to 198,066 in 2011, a 5.6% decrease over 11
years. The population is expected to continue its decline to 194,253 by 2016, a decrease of
2.0%, compared to an expected 4.0% increase nationally.
This area is comprised of 79,685 households, with an average household size of 2.35,
below the national average of 2.6. The median age of this population is 38.8, above the national
average of 37.0. Only 48% of the households are families, significantly below the national
average of 68%.
Average household income in this area is $56,975, which exceeds the first trade area by
nearly $19,000 but falls short of the national average of $67,529. About a quarter (24%) of the
households have income of more than $75,000.
Households with no vehicle represent 13.9% of the households in this band but at 2-5
miles from the Market, these residents are unlikely to walk. Access to the Market via public
transportation is likely to be important for these residents.
In terms of educational attainment, this trade area has higher levels of both bachelors’
and advanced degrees than the first trade area. The percentage of the population that hold a
bachelor’s degree nearly meets the 17.5% national average at 17.4%. The percentage of the
population with advanced degrees is 15.3% which surpasses the national average of 10.1%
The Food Purchasing Index for this trade area is closer to the national average than the
first trade area, with 7 out of the 12 categories in the 90s. Once again poultry exceeds the
national average at 107 as does beer at 103. The only area that falls out of this range is fresh
seafood at 74.
These demographics suggest moderate potential interest in a market hall. The relatively
small number of residents with income over $75,000 and the smaller number of families raises
concern about the likelihood of these residents frequently shopping at the Public Market.
However, many residents are highly educated and there is a strong local tie to the Public
Market. The Public Market is not as convenient to these residents as those who live within two
miles and there is competition, particularly with two Wegman’s on the eastern side of the trade
area.
8 “The SNAP Market Token Program,” p. 2.

Trade area 3: Area between 5 mile ring and 25 mile ring
The 5-25 mile band is estimated to contain 566,234 people divided into 213,105
households in 2011. Unlike the other two trade areas which are experiencing population
decline, this area is expected to grow by 2.4% between 2000 and 2011, and continue to grow
another 1% by 2016.
The median age within this trade area (40.2) is higher than the other two areas and the
national average (37.0). A fairly large percentage of people (41.9%) fall into the targeted 35-64
year old age band. The average household size (2.56) is comparable to the national average of
2.60.
Household income in the third trade area far exceeds the second trade area and the
national average: $75,066 compared to a national average of $67,529. Per capita income of
$28,623 is well above the national average of $25,728. A robust 37.9% of the households have
household income of more than $75,000.
Educational attainment in this trade area is the highest of the three trade areas and
exceeds the national averages by a healthy margin. 20.9% have a bachelor’s degree compared to
the national average of 17.5% and 14.2% have an advanced degree compared to 10.1%
nationally.
Only 4.4% of the households do not have a vehicle so this does not present a barrier to
driving to the Market.
This trade area ranks above national averages for food purchasing in all areas except
fresh seafood which is only 84.
The residents of the third trade area offer a potentially strong target for the Public
Market. This area has the largest population and the demographic profile of its residents closely
matches the typical profile of high spending public market customers. Since the Market can be
far from their homes, access and parking are important factors to reach these potential
customers. Because of the distance, coming to the Market can be considered an intentional
destination; there are many more convenient places nearby for them to buy food. Saturdays and
Sundays are therefore the most likely times they will come to the Market.
Tourists
In many cities, tourists make up a significant percentage of a public market’s clientele.

Tourists are often attracted to markets because they are unique places, offering a window into
the culture of the region where they are located. As Americans have become more interested in
food and cuisine, they are searching out markets when they travel. In Rochester, the Public
Market’s location outside of downtown and the fact that it is not visible from a highway make it
challenging to attract tourists compared to public markets that are along conventional tourist
paths. Locating restaurants that feature wines produced by Finger Lakes vineyards or local
breweries at the Market could serve as a draw to bring more tourists to the Market but the
tourist segment is unlikely to be a major component of the customer base because of the
Market’s location and because Rochester is not a major tourist destination.

Sales potential
The chart below shows Nielsen/Claritas estimates for aggregate annual food and
beverage expenditures in thousands of dollars for each of the three trade areas, divided among
the types of products typically found in a public market. Nielsen/Claritas determines these
estimates based on the demographic profile of residents in each of the trade areas, not a direct
survey of actual residents. The table on top shows estimates for 2011 and the table below
shows projections for 2016.
2011 Estimate 2 mile ring 2-5 m band 5-25 m band Total

Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) (000s)
Baked goods $19,687 $43,299 $134,535 $197,521
Dairy $22,097 $48,261 $153,266 $223,624
Meat $30,079 $61,197 $185,115 $276,391
Poultry $16,344 $30,060 $83,423 $129,827
Prepared foods $7,459 $16,777 $54,809 $79,045
Produce - fresh $17,868 $39,358 $123,387 $180,613
Seafood - fresh $1,860 $4,024 $12,574 $18,458
Specialty food $15,525 $35,924 $116,309 $167,758
Sweets $8,137 $20,087 $98,466 $126,690
Coffee/Tea $5,536 $12,425 $39,571 $57,532
Wine/Beer $25,506 $58,515 $185,465 $269,486
Total $170,098 $369,927 $1,186,920 $1,726,945
2016 Projection 2 mile ring 2-5 m band 5-25 m band Total

Market categories (000s) (000s) (000s) (000s)
Baked goods $19,438 $42,971 $138,313 $200,722
Dairy $21,758 $47,822 $157,610 $227,190
Meat $29,793 $60,770 $189,377 $279,940
Poultry $16,210 $29,916 $85,317 $131,443
Prepared foods $7,286 $16,579 $56,383 $80,248
Produce - fresh $17,572 $38,871 $126,191 $182,634
Seafood - fresh $1,833 $3,995 $12,901 $18,729
Specialty food $15,302 $35,635 $119,695 $170,632
Sweets $8,007 $19,871 $101,010 $128,888
Coffee/Tea $5,483 $12,324 $40,638 $58,445
Wine/Beer $25,062 $58,086 $191,290 $274,438
Total $167,744 $366,840 $1,218,725 $1,753,309
Change 2011-2016 -1.4% -0.8% 2.7% 1.5%

Adding the various categories vertically, total demand for these fresh food categories in
2011 for residents within the 2 mile ring is $170.1 million. Based on population and income
change, this figure is expected to drop 1.4% to $167.7 million in 2016. Total demand in 2011
for the 2-5 mile band is $369.9 million and $1.19 billion for the 5-25 mile band. The second
trade area is expected to see demand decrease by 0.8% between 2011 and 2016, while the third
trade area will see a modest 2.7% increase. Adding the three trade areas together, there is $1.73
billion of demand for these fresh food categories within the three trade areas in 2011, which is
expected to increase slightly to $1.75 billion in 2016. The pie chart labeled “Fresh Food
Demand” shows the relative size of the demand in the three trade areas, with the two mile ring
representing the smallest share at 10% and the third trade area representing the largest demand
for fresh food at 69%.
Since tourists are likely to be a small
fraction of sales, fresh food sales at the Public FreshFoodDemand
Market will come from this local demand for fresh Rochester2011Estimate
food. To estimate the potential demand for fresh
food products within the Public Market, this 2mile
consumer demand data is utilized with projected ring
capture rates for each of the products in each of the 10%
three trade areas. The chart labeled “Sales Analysis 25m
– 2011,” in Appendix D shows the calculations. band
This chart repeats the product categories and 21%
demand estimates from the chart above in the first 525m
two columns. The third column, labeled band
“Potential,” contains a realistic estimate for the 69%
percentage of sales that Market vendors could be
able to obtain, based on the analysis of
demographic factors, distance to the Market, and
existing competition.9
The fourth column, labeled “Sales,” is the product of multiplying the potential by the
capture percentage. For example, in the Baked Goods category, Nielsen/Claritas estimates
$19.7 million in consumer demand for baked goods within the first trade area. Market
Ventures, Inc. estimates that vendors in the Rochester Public Market could reasonably capture
5.0% of those sales, based on our experience and research. This results in the potential for
$984,000 in annual baked goods sales at the Public Market from residents in the first trade area.
Adding the sales for baked goods across all three trade areas, we estimate that the demand for
bakery products within the Public Market is reasonably $4.3 million.
The capture rates for the first trade area are influenced upward by the close proximity of
the Public Market to residents and the lack of competing stores nearby, but downward by the
9. These estimates have been developed and refined by the Market Ventures, Inc. through its work planning,
developing, and operating public markets and its research of other public markets around the country. The
potential suggests what accomplished vendors might realistically achieve for sales from a trade area. Particularly
strong vendors might achieve higher sales from the trade area if their business is unique and attractive to
consumers. Conversely, weak vendors will fall short of the demand potential because area residents will spend
their dollars elsewhere. This analysis is only meant to provide a barometer of potential, not a prediction of what
actual sales might be.

weak demographics in this area. The capture rate for produce (10.0%) is higher than typical and
reflects the significant current sales by the Market’s large number of produce vendors. In the
second area, the demographics are better but still not strong, and there is much more
competition. Capture rates are estimated at one-third the amount of the first trade area. The
third trade area has the strongest demographics but the Market is not convenient for these
residents. Capture rates are estimated at one-half the amounts of the second trade area.
Summing the sales total column for the two mile ring, a reasonable estimate of demand
is $9.4 million, which represents 5.5% of the demand for all fresh food sales in this trade area.
The demand estimate for the second trade area is $6.8 million (1.8% of the demand for fresh
food in this region) and $10.8 million from the 5-25 mile band, which is 0.91% of demand for
fresh foods in that region. Taken as a whole, the
three trade areas reflect $27.1 million in demand SourcesofDemand
for fresh food at the Public Market out of the Tourists
region’s $1.73 billion of total demand, or 1.6% of 3%
the total.
Given the wide variation in tourist
purchases, a capture rate methodology has not been 2mile
525
developed for tourists. Rather, we utilize a mark- mile ring
up factor over the sales to local residents. For this band 34%
analysis, sales to tourists have been projected at 3% 39%
of the local consumer demand. Based on 3% add-
on sales, shoppers from outside of the 25 mile ring 25mile
are expected to generate sales of $812,000, which band
brings total market sales potential to $27.9 million. 24%
As the chart labeled “Sources of Demand”
shows, the 5-25 mile ring represents the largest
share of potential demand at 39%, followed by the 2-5 mile band at 24% and the two mile ring
at 22%. Tourists are estimated to contribute 3% toward total demand.
These demand estimates are only for fresh food. Public markets typically have food to
eat on premises (prepared food and restaurants). Since two-thirds of customers report always
and often coming to the Market with someone else and many customers come from somewhat
far away, it is likely that many will be interested to eat while they are at the Market. The chart
below shows Nielsen/Claritas estimates for demand for breakfast, lunch, and dinner from each
of the three trade areas. In total, there is $707 million in demand for food away from home
within the three trade areas.

2011 2016
2 mile ring Estimate Projection Change $ Change %
Food Away From Home (000s) (000s) (000s)
Breakfast $7,547 $7,494 ($53) -0.7%
Lunch $23,080 $22,763 ($317) -1.4%
Dinner $33,199 $32,715 ($484) -1.5%
Total $63,826 $62,972 ($854) -1.3%
2010 2016
2-5 mile band Estimate Projection Change $ Change %
(000s) (000s) (000s)
Breakfast $16,796 $16,838 $42 0.3%
Lunch $52,488 $52,533 $45 0.1%
Dinner $80,559 $80,579 $20 0.0%
Total $149,843 $149,950 $107 0.1%
2010 2016
5-25 mile band Estimate Projection Change $ Change %
(000s) (000s) (000s)
Breakfast $53,872 $56,061 $2,189 4.1%
Lunch $169,450 $176,349 $6,899 4.1%
Dinner $270,606 $281,974 $11,368 4.2%
Total $493,928 $514,384 $20,456 4.1%
TOTAL $707,597 $727,306 $19,709 2.8%
Given the lack of any restaurants in the Public Market and the relatively small scale of
the current food service operations, there appears be potential for additional food service.
Demand analysis conclusions
The Rochester Public Market currently attracts shoppers from throughout the
metropolitan area, particularly on Saturdays during the warmer months. Thursday sales are
fairly strong and Tuesday is weak. Market management runs events on Fridays and Sundays to
attract people to the district but few vendors and adjacent stores are open.
Based on the research, there are two principal consumer targets for the Public Market:
1) low income consumers who live relatively close to the Market, many of whom have SNAP
benefits that can be converted into Market tokens and redeemed by Market vendors, and 2)
higher income suburban customers who visit the Market because it is a unique experience and
the Market offers locally grown and produced foods directly from the producer. Recent trends
suggest increases in both types of customers in terms of rapidly growing utilization of Market
tokens and growing number of overall visitors to the Market.
Expanding the number of vendors and the days of operation will be challenging because
of the expected decrease in population and the resulting increased competition with existing
food retailers in the region. However, consumer interest in the public market is strong and there

should be opportunities to grow the Market incrementally through higher sales to existing
customers and the attraction of new customers. The Market’s recent efforts to improve
customer parking and the growing number of customers at the Market provide a strong basis to
continue to build customer demand with new vendors and new product offerings.
6. Supply Analysis
The supply analysis looks at competition to the Rochester Public Market and who might
be vendors and suppliers at an expanded Wintershed.
The initial source of vendors for the expanded Wintershed will be the existing vendors.
As described above, there are currently 34 businesses with annual leases in the Wintershed,
including a good mix of fresh food businesses representing all of the major product areas
typically found in a public market with the exception of wine/beer and dairy.
Currently, Market management only requires Wintershed vendors to be open on
Saturdays; they may choose to open on Tuesdays and Thursdays and many do not. Some of the
Wintershed vendors are open for business but move into the open sheds on Thursdays when
spaces are available because there are more customers in the open shed areas. As a result, the
customer experience on Tuesdays and Thursdays is severely degraded because customers walk
into the Wintershed and see empty stalls and display cases. This sends a clear signal that the
Market is failing and customers are not being served. Some customers reported never going
into the Wintershed during the week because there are so few businesses open, contributing to a
downward spiral of expectations and reality.
Indoor public markets typically require that vendors must be open all hours when the
market is advertised as open. Operating schedules at other public markets range from three to
seven days per week. A longer operating schedule in Rochester would support the city’s goal of
creating an active market district throughout the week and better serve customers. Some current
Wintershed vendors have said they are not interested or able to meet the existing three day
schedule, much less a longer schedule. If the rules change when the Wintershed is redeveloped
and vendors are required to operate on all days when the Market is open, new vendors will need
to replace those who leave.
Most of the Wintershed vendors participated in the vendor focus group. The vendors
spoke about the family-like atmosphere in the Wintershed, a reflection in part on the long tenure
many of had in the Wintershed and the multiple generations that sell there (the Wintershed
opened in 1978, so it has been operating for 33 years).
The vendors showed particular interest in the following improvements to the
Wintershed:
x Wider aisles
x Continuity in the look of spaces
x Better amenities and infrastructure
x Increased visibility and accessibility
x More parking

Many did not support the idea of a demonstration kitchen within the Wintershed and
they did not want a “food court” design nor a second story on the building. They placed a high
premium on parking and did not want anything that would reduce parking or their access to
their stalls. Some vendors liked the idea of having a larger stall that would accommodate
permanent storage or food production.
Some vendors expressed interest in operating more days per week while others like the
flexibility of choosing their operating schedule and like selling in the Wintershed only one day
per week.
Following existing Wintershed businesses, a second source of vendors for the expanded
Wintershed will be other vendors in the Public Market district who currently sell from the open
sheds or from the storefronts along Commission Row. One of the bakeries interviewed on
Commission Row stated that he was interested in having a space in the Wintershed but was told
that none is available. His monthly rent is equivalent to annual rent in the Wintershed (although
he has much more space and produces his products in his store).
According to the participants in the focus group of non-Wintershed vendors, they choose
not to be in the Wintershed because they like being outdoors where there is more space and they
have more ability to interact with customers. They like the idea of more bathrooms and
improved eating areas but said that an improved Wintershed would not draw them indoors.
Like the Wintershed vendors, they do not want to see parking reduced or any limits to customer
accessibility. Since they view the Public Market as being successful, they do not see the need to
make major changes or add more leasable space.
A third source is food retailers from the region who have a retail store elsewhere. Today
supermarkets and groceries dominate food retailing in the United States, with nearly 95%
market share in the year 2000. The remaining 5.3% of food sales are captured by specialized
food stores, defined as stores that are primarily engaged in the retail sale of a single food
category such as meat and seafood markets, dairy stores, candy and nut stores, and retail bakers.
Nationally, the market share of specialized food stores dropped from 6.6% in 1980 to 5.3% in
2000. In the wake of the recession, all food stores are facing increased competition from mass-
merchandisers and warehouse club outlets and long term trends toward more eating out,
resulting in increased competition for a smaller pie.10
The past 20 years has seen radical change in the grocery business, commencing with the
first Wal-Mart supercenter in 1988 which offered fresh and grocery food items in addition to its
large selection of discounted department store merchandise. Along with the growth of
warehouse clubs such as Costco and Sam’s Club, these nontraditional food stores have grown
from controlling 13.8% of the national share of food purchases for at-home consumption in
1986 to a staggering 32.6% in 2006.11 In less than 20 years, Wal-Mart became the country’s
single largest seller of food for at-home use. Having saturated the country with supercenters,
Wal-Mart is now moving aggressively into smaller format stores with grocery components,
including a 15,000 sf neighborhood format.
10 Economic Research Service, USDA, U.S. Food Marketing System, 2002, AER-811.
11 Martinez, Steve and Phil Kaufman, “Twenty Years of Competition Reshape the U.S. Food Marketing System,”
Economic Research Service, USDA, April 2008.

Wal-Mart is not only the nation’s largest food retailer, it is also committed to local
foods. Wal-Mart has stated that its goal is “to support farmers and their communities, through a
combination of sourcing more directly from them and providing training in agricultural
practices.” By the end of 2015, Wal-Mart expects to sell $1 billion globally in food sourced
directly from small, medium, and local farmers. In the U.S., Wal-Mart plans to double its sale
of locally sourced produced.12
Over time, there has been a
steep decline in the number of Food&BeverageSales2007
independent, specialty food stores
selling basic food items, such as meat RochesterMSA
and seafood, making it more Specialty Beer,wine
foodstores liquor
challenging to find experienced tenants
1.8% stores
for a public market. According to the 5.3%
2007 Economic Census, there were 229
grocery stores with sales of $2.1
billion within the Rochester
Metropolitan Statistical Area (which
includes Livingston, Monroe, Ontario,
Grocery
Orleans and Wayne Counties). By stores
contrast, there were only 89 specialty 91.0%
food stores with sales of $41.2 million,
or 1.8% of total food and beverage
sales (see chart, “Food & Beverage
Sales 2007: Rochester MSA”).
Therefore, there is a limited pool of existing food retailers for the Rochester Public Market to
draw from in the region.
Another major development has
been the indirect competition that food NumberofRestaurants
retailers have felt from the food-away- RochesterMSA
from-home sector. In 1988, Americans
spent 45.4% of their food dollars on food 1000
900
away from home; by 2006, that 800
percentage had grown to 48.9%. In some 700
parts of the country, expenditures for food 600
away from home exceed those for food 500
400
bought for consumption at home. The 300
recent recession has altered these figures 200
somewhat but the fact remains that 100
Americans are cooking less and eating 0
Fullservice Limited Specialfood Drinking
fewer of their meals at home. In
restaurants serviceeating services places
Rochester, sales at eating and drinking places
establishments equaled $1.22 billion in
2007, while grocery sales equaled $2.31 2002EconomicCensus 2007EconomicCensus
billion. Therefore, eating and drinking
12 Wal-Mart Sustainable Agriculture: Fact Sheet, www.walmartstores.com

establishments represented 35% of all food sales in Rochester, so dining away from home is a
less pronounced phenomenon in this area. According to the 2007 Economic Census, there were
2,035 eating and drinking places in the Rochester MSA, with the largest number being “Limited
service eating places” with 905 establishments and $520 million in sales. As the chart to the
right shows, the number of restaurants increased between 2002 and 2007, driven almost
exclusively the increases in limited service eating places (fast food restaurants).
A third major development has been the growth of “fresh format” stores which
emphasize perishables and natural or organic products. From 1999 to 2006, Whole Foods
Market, the industry leader, experienced 275% growth in sales while the second largest chain,
Wild Oats, saw sales grow 64%. This compares to 22% increase for all grocery stores during
the same period. While there are currently no Whole Foods Markets in Rochester, the area is
home to Wegman’s, one of the best supermarket chains in the country.
The maps found in Appendix C show the location of supermarkets, small neighborhood
markets, and farmers’ markets in relation to Rochester Public Market. Within two miles of the
Market there is a Wegman’s on East Avenue near the intersection of I-490 and I-590 to the
southeast, and an Aldi to the West on Lake Avenue. There are also two Topps stores, a Save-A-
Lot, and a Super Walmart within two miles of the Market. Otherwise, this area is served by
mini-marts and small stores in addition to the Public Market.
A fourth source of vendors is start-up entrepreneurs who do not yet have their own store.
While the Public Market has historically been a place where start-up entrepreneurs can get
started with their new business, start-ups should not be the primary source for new tenants
because of their lack of experience.
Finally, a fifth source of vendors is to recruit businesses from outside the Rochester
region. While some public markets have done this, it goes against the grain of the Market being
a place for local, non-chain businesses. Unless an owner relocates to Rochester, the business
will lack the unique benefits of being an owner-occupied store.
Public markets in every city outside of the major metropolitan areas struggle to find
interested and qualified vendors because it is difficult to run a successful small food business,
particularly when consumers are very focused on low prices and there is tremendous
competition from supermarkets and other sources. Therefore, it is important that an expanded
Wintershed retain many of its existing tenants and help them grow their businesses in a way that
supports both their own operations and the Market as a whole. Given the small pool of existing
retailers outside of the Public Market, the number of vendors in the Wintershed needs to grow
incrementally and, ideally, over time.
7. SWOT Analysis
The following SWOT analysis summarizes the Market’s strengths and weakness and
identifies the emerging opportunities and threats that should inform potential improvements to
the Market.
Strengths
• Market is well known and loved throughout the region

• Increasing attendance
• When the new parking lot is completed, 1,300 free on-grade parking spaces will be
available and the shuttle service will improve pedestrian circulation
• Number, quality and diversity of vendors
• Passionate and dedicated management staff
• Well organized and popular SNAP token program
• Well attended special events
• Profitable operation
• Year-round operation
Weakness
• Low sales on Tuesdays

• Few prepared food options and no restaurants
• Limited operating hours for storefront businesses
• Challenging demographics for a weekly retail function
• Market is not adjacent to a highway or major thoroughfare so not easily accessible
although many signs for Market around town
• Customer and vehicular circulation around and through the site
• Inadequate restroom facilities
• Limited public seating
Opportunities
• Increasing interest in locally grown foods and direct purchasing from farmers
• Interest in educational activities such as cooking demonstrations
• Demand for vendor space and storefront business locations
• Increase number and diversity of special events
Threats
• Vendors’ unwillingness to operate on Tuesdays and Thursdays

• Prevalence and popularity of Wegman’s
• Limited specialty food retailers in the region to draw as new vendors
• Perception of poor parking
• Neighborhood deterioration and concerns for safety

8. Conclusion
A primary conclusion from the market research is the lack of preconditions to develop a
daily fresh food market hall at the Rochester Public Market. It is unlikely to consistently attract
Rochester area customers throughout the week to a market hall. The large majority of current
Wintershed vendors do not appear interested in a daily market hall and there are not adequate
sources of fresh food retailers from elsewhere in the region to tenant it.
Another important conclusion is the precept of “do no harm” to the Market. Consumers
and vendors are very supportive of the Market and concerned about potential negative impacts
of change. Therefore it is wise to be very careful about any substantial changes and ensure they
won’t potentially detract from the Market experience.
The most promising way to achieve the project’s goal of creating an active market
district throughout the week and year is to expand the number of storefront businesses in and
around the Market. Private landlords in the Market report strong interest in leasable space.
Storefront facilities offer numerous advantages, including lower costs of construction, more
flexibility in operating schedule and opening dates, ease of reuse, and lower management costs.
Storefronts can also more easily accommodate the types of businesses that are proving to be
most successful in the district: food production with retail components. A food producer can
create unique, high quality products that are sold to a number of wholesale and retail buyers,
allowing the retail component in the Market to grow over time. Storefronts could also house one
or more restaurants, which would help satisfy the demand for more prepared foods at the
Market.
Another low cost/low impact way to increase activity in the Market throughout the year
is to enclose one or more of the Market sheds. A simple garage door and heating system will
make the Market more attractive to both vendors and customers throughout the winter. City
Market in Kansas City provides a good model for adding garage doors to an historic farmers’
market shed.
Demand for vendor space in the Market suggests an opportunity to increase the amount
of vending space, perhaps with a new Market shed. On the customer demand side, there
appears to be a large untapped market of nearby residents, including those who receive SNAP
benefits and have few convenient places to buy fresh food. Building on the SNAP EBT token
success to date, reaching these customers will require increased marketing/communications and
expanded capacity to distribute the tokens in the Market. There should also be educational
activities focused on informing low income residents about purchasing, storage, and preparation
of fresh foods. This will help achieve the goal of serving a wide range of customers,
particularly low income families.
Finally, the most promising additional day to consider operations is Sunday. Already
the Market puts on many events on Sundays and consumers indicated they have been to the
Market on Sundays. Given the event nature of the entire Market experience, another weekend
day provides the greatest opportunity to reach consumers from throughout the region who are
looking for weekend activities.

9. Appendix A. Marketview Heights study area

10. Appendix B. City Market, Kansas City

11. Appendix C. Store Locations

12. Appendix D. Sales Analysis

Sales Analysis - 2011
Rochester, NY
2 mile ring 2-5 mile band 5-25 mile band Total

Population 102,648 198,066 566,234 866,948
Demand Potential Demand Capture Potential Demand Capture Potential Demand Demand
Market categories (000s) Capture rate (000s) (000s) rate (000s) (000s) rate (000s) (000s) Total (000s) % of total
Baked goods $19,687 6.0% $1,181 $43,299 2.0% $866 $134,535 1.00% $1,345 $197,521 $3,393 12.5%
Dairy $22,097 5.0% $1,105 $48,261 1.7% $804 $153,266 0.83% $1,277 $223,624 $3,186 11.8%
Meat $30,079 5.0% $1,504 $61,197 1.7% $1,020 $185,115 0.83% $1,543 $276,391 $4,067 15.0%
Poultry $16,344 5.0% $817 $30,060 1.7% $501 $83,423 0.83% $695 $129,827 $2,013 7.4%
Prepared foods $7,459 5.0% $373 $16,777 1.7% $280 $54,809 0.83% $457 $79,045 $1,109 4.1%
Produce - fresh $17,868 10.0% $1,787 $39,358 3.3% $1,312 $123,387 1.67% $2,056 $180,613 $5,155 19.0%
Seafood - fresh $1,860 5.0% $93 $4,024 1.7% $67 $12,574 0.83% $105 $18,458 $265 1.0%
Specialty food $15,525 5.0% $776 $35,924 1.7% $599 $116,309 0.83% $969 $167,758 $2,344 8.7%
Sweets $8,137 3.0% $244 $20,087 1.0% $201 $98,466 0.50% $492 $126,690 $937 3.5%
Coffee/Tea $5,536 5.0% $277 $12,425 1.7% $207 $39,571 0.83% $330 $57,532 $814 3.0%
Wine/Beer $25,506 5.0% $1,275 $58,515 1.7% $975 $185,465 0.83% $1,546 $269,486 $3,796 14.0%
Total/Average/Total $170,098 5.5% $9,432 $369,927 1.8% $6,832 $1,186,920 0.91% $10,815 $1,726,945 $27,079 100.0%
Notes 1.57%
Nielsen estimates for 2011 Consumer Spending Patterns
Assumes no growth in food expenditures when public market is in place
Estimated demand $27,079,493

Tourist demand 3.0% $812,385
Total demand $27,891,878


Financial Analysis
Prepared for City of Rochester

February 10, 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2
2. Income..................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Expenses ................................................................................................................................. 7
4. Profit (Loss) ............................................................................................................................ 9
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 10
Financial Analysis Page 1

1. Introduction
This report on Financial Analysis accompanies the Market Analysis conducted by
Market Ventures, Inc. (MVI) as part of its work on the renovations of the Public Market Shed B
(the “Wintershed”) and surrounding site.
The financial analysis models projected income and expenses based on the master plan
developed by the consultant team. The master plan includes the following elements:
1. Creation of a new open Shed D in the space between Shed A and Commissary Row
(Phase 1)
2. Winterization of existing Shed C with roll-up garage doors, which will provide
indoor selling space for existing Wintershed vendors during renovation of Shed B
(Phase 2)
3. Redevelopment of Shed B at the same location and with approximately the same
footprint, except with expansion to accommodate the prepared food “kiosks” and
restroom facilities to replace the existing bathroom building (Phase 3a)
4. Creation of a pedestrian-friendly plaza in place of the existing bathroom building
and expansion of the Market House to accommodate education and event facilities
(Phase 3b)
5. Construction of a new storefront building in the existing parking lot at the Market’s
west entrance on Union Street (independent Phase)
For purposes of economic modeling, it is assumed that each phase will take one year.
Market management provided MVI with several years of annual budgets. Since the
purpose of the economic modeling is to see the financial impact of changes, income and
expenses are assumed to hold steady except for the impact of the proposed changes. The
FY2012 operating budget provides the baseline year. This economic model is different than a
budgeting process, which would assume annual increases in wage rates and changes to rental
rates or vacancy based on economic conditions. The purpose here is to investigate impacts to
income and expenses of the proposed master plan changes, not build an operating budget for
future years.
2. Income
The Market’s income currently comes from:
1. Annual leaseholds and seasonal rentals for each of the sheds
2. Daily rentals
3. “Other” which includes temporary, seasonal spots around the Market office and the
parking lots, as well as spaces rented on non-Market days including festivals and
holidays
4. Festivals
5. Finance charges

6. Snowplow and security charges
In the past two years, the budget for income from these sources has included:
Rochester Public Market FY11 FY12
Rental Income
Kiosks $10,700 $11,200
Shed A&C $246,400 $288,775
Wintershed $164,800 $164,800
Daily $134,500 $101,805
Other $159,500 $81,300
Festivals $6,500 $5,500
Finance charges $35,000 $35,000
Snowplow/Security $36,159 $36,159
Gross Operating Income $793,559 $724,539
The large majority of income to the Market comes from rental of vendor space. The
chart below shows the number of vendor spaces within the Market’s structures; “other” income
comes from renting spaces in the open air. The column labeled FY12 shows the number of
spaces available currently:
Number stalls FY12 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4
Shed A 108 108 108 108 108
Wintershed 58 58 58 0 52
Shed C 66 66 44 66 66
Shed D 0 0 48 48 48
Kiosks 4 4 4 0 4
Storefronts 0 0 0 4 4
Total 236 236 262 226 282

Change previous yr 0 26 -36 56
In Phase 1 (year 1), the new Shed D is under construction but all other facilities remain
open. The impact to the Market’s operation will include a loss of several parking spaces and the
negative effects of having construction occur during the week. Since most rental income is
based on Saturday sales, the impact should not be extensive if the construction process is well
coordinated to minimize disruption. Furthermore, there should be no impact on income from
the kiosks or Shed B since they are all annual leases, and there should be no impact on non-rent
sources (festivals, finance charges, and snowplow/security). Kiosk rent is slightly higher than

the 2012 budget because rent was recently raised to $3,200 per year. To account for the impact
of construction, the model assumes a 5% decrease in rental income from Shed A, C, and from
daily, non-traditional, and special vendor rents. The calculations for each year are shown on the
spreadsheet, attached at the end of this report.
As the chart below shows, the total effect is an income drop of $27,700 for the year, or
3.8%.
Rochester Public Market FY12 Year 1

Rental Income
Kiosks $11,200 $12,800
Shed A (A&C yr 1) $288,775 $268,280
Shed C (winterized) $0
Shed D $0
Wintershed $164,800 $164,800
Daily $101,805 $96,715
Other $81,300 $77,585
Storefronts $0
Festivals $5,500 $5,500
Finance charges $35,000 $35,000
Snowplow/Security $36,159 $36,159
Gross Operating Income $724,539 $696,839
In Phase 2 (year 2), Shed D is complete and the Market leases the spaces and charges
rent. According to the design concept, Shed D will have 48 spaces that are each approximately
10’ x 30’, the same size as the ones in Shed A. Shed D will provide space for vendors currently
in Shed C while the garage door and heating systems are added to Shed C. The model assumes
the same rental rates for Shed D as Shed A. The total number of spaces available for rent at the
Market increases from 236 to 262, a gain of 26 stalls or 11%. Since there are more spaces
available on the Market and Shed C will be under construction, the model assumes a 20%
vacancy rate for Shed D this year.
Assuming the work in Shed C happens in three stages, one-third of the shed is closed at
a time so vendors can still sell from the other two-thirds. Currently, the Market reports income
from Sheds A and C together; for this analysis, the income is divided into two parts based on
the ratio of the number of stalls in each shed (108 or 62% in Shed A and 66 or 38% in Shed C).
Assuming a one-third drop in revenue from Shed C, as well as a 5% decline in revenue from the
base year because of construction, the new income includes the following:

Rochester Public Market FY12 Year 1 Year 2
Rental Income
Kiosks $11,200 $12,800 $12,800
Shed A (A&C yr 1) $288,775 $268,280 $167,863
Shed C (winterized) $0 $71,206
Shed D $0 $60,240
Wintershed $164,800 $164,800 $164,800
Daily $101,805 $96,715 $96,715
Other $81,300 $77,585 $77,585
Storefronts $0 $0
Festivals $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
Finance charges $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
Snowplow/Security $36,159 $36,159 $36,159
Gross Operating Income $724,539 $696,839 $727,868
In Year 2, total income increases to approximately the FY12 level, with new revenue
from Shed D offsetting reduced revenue from Sheds A and C and the daily and “other” sources.
In Phase 3 (Year 3), Shed C winterization is complete. The kiosks and Shed B close for
the year and their vendors temporarily relocate to the winterized Shed C. The total number of
spaces available at the Market drops from 262 in year 2 to 226 in year 3.
The model assumes that rent in Shed C stays the same as Shed A for this year, although
it could be increased because it is now indoor space in the winter. Occupancy is assumed to be
the same as the base year. Shed D has a 0% vacancy rate in year 3 because of the reduction of
total Market spaces during reconstruction of Shed B.
The new storefront building is assumed to open this year as well, with rental income
estimated at $12 per square foot for 7,800 square feet of leasable area. In its first year of
operation, the space is estimated at 50% leased.

Operating
Construction
Budget
Rochester Public Market FY12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Rental Income
Kiosks $11,200 $12,800 $12,800 $0
Shed A (A&C yr 1) $288,775 $268,280 $167,863 $176,345
Shed C (winterized) $0 $71,206 $112,430
Shed D $0 $60,240 $95,200
Wintershed $164,800 $164,800 $164,800 $0
Daily $101,805 $96,715 $96,715 $102,000
Other $81,300 $77,585 $77,585 $81,300
Storefronts $0 $0 $46,800
Festivals $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
Finance charges $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
Snowplow/Security $36,159 $36,159 $36,159 $36,159
Gross Operating Income $724,539 $696,839 $727,868 $690,734
In Year 3, gross income has dropped about $34,000 below the base year or 4.7%.
In Year 4, all construction is complete and the Market has access to the new or
redeveloped facilities.
Shed A rents and number of stalls hold steady from the baseline year.
The schematic design for Shed B includes 26 spaces that are 9’ x 9’ spaces without
storage, and 26 spaces that are 9’ x 10’ with 9’ x 9’ storage areas behind them. Rents in Shed B
are currently about $36 per sf (72 sf at $2,575 per year). The pro forma assumes that rents
increase modestly to $42 per sf for retail areas and $20 per sf for storage spaces, reflecting the
upgraded facilities. Annual rent is now $3,402 per year for the retail spaces without storage and
$5,400 for spaces with storage. Total rent for Shed B increases from the baseline of
$164,800/year to $228,852/year.
The prepared food kiosks are now integrated into Shed B. Based on the schematic
design, the prepared food spaces are 684 sf (36’ x 19’) and each has its own seating area of 756
sf (36’ x 21’). Assuming rents are $12 per sf for the retail space and $8 per sf for the seating
areas, annual rent per space is $14,256 or $1,188 per month. While this is substantially more
than the $3,200/year in ground rents paid by the kiosk businesses now, they will be inside the
Market building, have new code-compliant facilities, and have substantially more seating.
Rents are in-line with rents in the district on a per square foot basis. Higher rents should also
have the effect of encouraging the prepared food businesses to be open for business more hours
and the design accommodates their ability to be open with the rest of Shed B is closed. For ease
of comparison in the chart below, the rent for the prepared food business is on the same line as
the kiosks, although they are no longer stand-alone kiosks.
Rents in Shed C increase 25% to reflect the winterized space. The number of vendors
holds steady although this reflects an increase in utilization since there are now more stalls

available on the Market.
Rents from Shed D hold steady from the previous year although the number of vendors
drops by 10% to reflect less than full occupancy with the greater number of stalls available at
the Market. The other categories remain steady.
The storefronts are assumed to be 75% occupied in Year 4 and 100% occupied in Year
5. Year 5 can be considered the new steady state:
Operating
Construction Open
Budget
Rochester Public Market FY12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Rental Income
Kiosks $11,200 $12,800 $12,800 $0 $57,024 $57,024
Shed A (A&C yr 1) $288,775 $268,280 $167,863 $176,345 $176,345 $176,345
Shed C (winterized) $0 $71,206 $112,430 $140,538 $140,538
Shed D $0 $60,240 $95,200 $85,250 $95,200
Wintershed $164,800 $164,800 $164,800 $0 $228,852 $228,852
Daily $101,805 $96,715 $96,715 $102,000 $102,000 $102,000
Other $81,300 $77,585 $77,585 $81,300 $81,300 $81,300
Storefronts $0 $0 $46,800 $70,200 $93,600
Festivals $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
Finance charges $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
Snowplow/Security $36,159 $36,159 $36,159 $36,159 $36,159 $36,159
Gross Income $724,539 $696,839 $727,868 $690,734 $1,018,168 $1,051,518
Gross operating income increases to slightly over $1 million, a 45% increase from the
base year.
3. Expenses
Similar analysis was performed year by year for Market expenses. For this analysis,
expenses are grouped into three categories: personnel, marketing/communications, and
operations. The Market’s budgets for these items in the past two years include:

Operating Budgets
Rochester Public Market FY11 FY12
Expenses
Personnel
Administration $103,700 $72,600
Personnel $217,200 $219,300
Security $116,900 $161,900
Subtotal $437,800 $453,800
Marketing/Commun. $26,900 $11,600
Operations
Janitorial $27,000 $27,000
Maintenance/repair $15,600 $19,600
Supplies $600 $600
Utilities $51,600 $54,000
Waste removal $32,700 $33,300
Subtotal $127,500 $134,500
Total Operating Expenses $592,200 $599,900
The FY12 budget is used as the baseline year.

In the model, the cost of operations (janitorial, maintenance, supplies, utilities, waste
removal) vary based on the amount of leasable square feet under management each year, plus a
percentage increase factor (mainly to account for additional utility costs associated with the
winterized Shed C). In the baseline year, the Market has 53,616 leasable square feet and cost of
operations of $134,500, or $2.51 per sf. This square foot cost is then applied each year to the
amount of leasable square footage based on the construction phasing described above.
According to the schematic design, the amount of leasable square feet each year and the
resulting cost of operations are:
FY12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Leasable square feet 53,616 53,616 67,776 70,200 82,512
Rate/sf $2.51
Cost of operations $134,500 $134,500 $170,021 $176,102 $206,988
In Phase 1 (year 1), all personnel and cost of operations hold steady because no new
vendor space is added to the Market while Shed D is under construction. Marketing and
communications increase 200% to $34,800 so there are adequate resources to provide
information to customers about the construction process and minimize attrition.
In Phase 2 (year 2), Shed D is operational and Shed C is under construction. The model
assumes that Administrative and Security costs increase 5% and Personnel increases 10% since

there are more vendor spaces to manage. Marketing/communication increase 25% over the
previous year so there is adequate budget to keep attracting customers during the construction
period, while operating expenses increase 5%.
In Phase 3 (year 3), Personnel and Security increase 5%, and operations increase 3%.
Finally, in year 4, Personnel increases 3% and operations increase 3%.
Operating
Construction Open
Budget
Rochester Public Market FY12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Expenses
Personnel
Administration $72,600 $72,600 $76,230 $76,230 $76,230
Personnel $219,300 $219,300 $241,230 $253,292 $260,890
Security $161,900 $161,900 $169,995 $178,495 $178,495
Subtotal $453,800 $453,800 $487,455 $508,016 $515,615
Marketing/Commun. $11,600 $34,800 $43,500 $43,500 $43,500
Operations $134,500 $134,500 $178,523 $181,385 $213,198
Total Expenses $599,900 $623,100 $709,478 $732,902 $772,313
Increase over previous year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Personnel
Administration 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Personnel 0.0% 10.0% 5.0% 3.0%
Security 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Marketing/Communications 200.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Operating expenses 0.0% 5.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Operating expenses increase from $599,900 in the base year to $772,313 in year 4, an
increase of 29%, reflecting the greater amount of square footage under management and the
more substantial marketing budget.
4. Profit (Loss)
Based on the assumptions described herein, the Market is profitable in all but one year
of the three year construction process (Year 3 when Shed B is closed). The loss is estimated at
$42,168 that year. Once construction is complete in year 4, profitability doubles from $124,639
in the base year to $245,855. In Year 5 net income continues to rise to $279,205 as the
storefront buildings become fully leased and Shed D is fully occupied.

Operating
Construction Open
Budget
Rochester Public Market FY12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Rental Income
Kiosks $11,200 $12,800 $12,800 $0 $57,024 $57,024
Shed A (A&C yr 1) $288,775 $268,280 $167,863 $176,345 $176,345 $176,345
Shed C (winterized) $0 $71,206 $112,430 $140,538 $140,538
Shed D $0 $60,240 $95,200 $85,250 $95,200
Wintershed $164,800 $164,800 $164,800 $0 $228,852 $228,852
Daily $101,805 $96,715 $96,715 $102,000 $102,000 $102,000
Other $81,300 $77,585 $77,585 $81,300 $81,300 $81,300
Storefronts $0 $0 $46,800 $70,200 $93,600
Festivals $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
Finance charges $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
Snowplow/Security $36,159 $36,159 $36,159 $36,159 $36,159 $36,159
Gross Income $724,539 $696,839 $727,868 $690,734 $1,018,168 $1,051,518
Expenses
Personnel
Administration $72,600 $72,600 $76,230 $76,230 $76,230 $76,230
Personnel $219,300 $219,300 $241,230 $253,292 $260,890 $260,890
Security $161,900 $161,900 $169,995 $178,495 $178,495 $178,495
Subtotal $453,800 $453,800 $487,455 $508,016 $515,615 $515,615
Marketing/Commun. $11,600 $34,800 $43,500 $43,500 $43,500 $43,500
Operations $134,500 $134,500 $178,523 $181,385 $213,198 $213,198
Total Expenses $599,900 $623,100 $709,478 $732,902 $772,313 $772,313
Net Operating Income $124,639 $73,739 $18,390 ($42,168) $245,855 $279,205
5. Conclusion
This financial model demonstrates that the proposed master plan changes to the
Rochester Public Market will result in substantial new revenue for the Market and modest
additional expenses. The proposed changes do not require reorganization of the Market’s
management or operations, simply some additional resources to account for the increase in
vendor spaces and the expected increase in winter utilization. The marketing budget increases
from under $12,000 per year to a more healthy $43,500 per year, reflecting the need to protect

the city’s investment in the Market and keep attracting customers both during construction and
afterwards as the facility adds more vendor spaces. Furthermore, in order to be conservative,
the model does not assume that there will be operational efficiencies with a larger facility
although operating costs could potentially lower on a per square foot basis.
The model does not include additional special event or festival income although the
rebuilding of the plaza provides the opportunity to grow that element of income, as well. At the
City Market in Kansas City, for example, special events (including several large music
concerts) bring in about $100,000 in revenue to the Market. At present, festival revenue at the
Rochester Public Market is only $5,500, so there is substantial upside opportunity in this area.
Overall, the Market will be poised to increase revenue without need for large additional
management expense.

Master Plan Financial Analysis
Phase 1 - Year 1 Phase 2 - Year 2 Phase 3 - Year 3 Year 4
Number Rate Revenue Number Rate Revenue Number Rate Revenue Number Rate Revenue Number Rate Revenue
Source Area FY12 FY12 FY12 Shed D construction Shed D added, C construction Shed C winterized, B construction All open
1 - Kiosks Kiosks 4 $3,200 $12,800 4 $3,200 $12,800 4 $3,200 $12,800 0 $3,200 $0 $0

1 - Kiosks Total $12,800 $12,800 $0 $0
2 - Shed A Shed A-C (Annual) 112 $1,350 $151,200 106 $1,350 $143,640 66 $1,350 $89,156 70 $1,350 $93,848 70 $1,350 $93,848
2 - Shed A Shed A-C (Annual Prepared) 2 $2,150 $4,300 2 $2,150 $4,085 1 $2,150 $2,043 1 $2,150 $2,669 1 $2,150 $2,669
2 - Shed A Shed A-C (Seasonal) 111 $1,100 $122,100 105 $1,100 $115,995 66 $1,100 $72,105 69 $1,100 $75,786 69 $1,100 $75,786
2 - Shed A Shed A-C (Seasonal Prepared) 1 $2,000 $2,000 1 $2,000 $1,900 1 $2,000 $1,900 1 $2,000 $1,241 1 $2,000 $1,241
2 - Shed A Shed A (Jan-April) 8 $350 $2,800 8 $350 $2,660 8 $350 $2,660 8 $350 $2,800 8 $350 $2,800
2 - Shed A Total $268,280 $167,863 $176,345 $176,345
2a - Shed C Shed C (Annual) $1,350 $1,350 $0 27 $1,350 $36,323 42 $1,350 $57,352 42 $1,688 $71,690
2a - Shed C Shed C (Annual Prepared) $2,150 $2,150 $0 0 $2,150 $1,033 1 $2,150 $1,631 1 $2,688 $2,039
2a - Shed C Shed C (Seasonal) $1,100 $1,100 $0 27 $1,100 $29,332 42 $1,100 $46,314 42 $1,375 $57,892
2a - Shed C Shed C (Seasonal Prepared) $2,000 $2,000 $0 0 $2,000 $480 0 $2,000 $759 0 $2,500 $948
2a - Shed C Shed C (Jan-April) 17 $375 $6,375 $375 $0 11 $375 $4,038 17 $375 $6,375 17 $469 $7,969
2a - Shed C Total $0 $71,206 $112,430 $140,538
3 - Shed D Shed D (Annual) $1,350 $0 32 $1,080 $34,560 40 $1,350 $54,000 36 $1,350 $48,600
3 - Shed D Shed D (Annual Prepared) $2,150 $0 6 $1,720 $10,320 8 $2,150 $17,200 7 $2,150 $15,050
3 - Shed D Shed D (Seasonal) $1,100 $0 16 $880 $14,080 20 $1,100 $22,000 18 $1,100 $19,800
3 - Shed D Shed D (Seasonal Prepared) $2,000 $0 1 $1,600 $1,280 1 $2,000 $2,000 1 $2,000 $1,800
3 - Shed D Shed D (Jan-April) $350 $0 0 $280 $0 0 $350 $0 0 $350 $0
3 - Shed D Shed D - Winter Prepared Food $375 $0 0 $300 $0 0 $375 $0 0 $375 $0
3 - Shed D Total $0 $60,240 $95,200 $85,250
4 - Wintershed Shed B - Wintershed 64 $2,575 $164,800 64 $2,575 $164,800 64 $2,575 $164,800 0 $2,575 $0 64 $2,575 $164,800
4 - Wintershed Total $164,800 $164,800 $0 $164,800
5 - Daily Daily - Jan. - April (average) 600 $25 $15,000 570 $25 $14,250 570 $25 $14,250 600 $25 $15,000 600 $25 $15,000
5 - Daily Daily - May - Oct. (average) 997 $65 $64,805 947 $65 $61,565 947 $65 $61,565 1000 $65 $65,000 1000 $65 $65,000
5 - Daily Daily - Nov. - Dec. (average) 550 $40 $22,000 523 $40 $20,900 523 $40 $20,900 550 $40 $22,000 550 $40 $22,000
5 - Daily Total $96,715 $96,715 $102,000 $102,000
6 - Other Non-traditional 46 $800 $36,800 44 $800 $34,960 44 $800 $34,960 46 $800 $36,800 46 $800 $36,800
6 - Other Cooler 1 $6,000 $6,000 1 $6,000 $6,000 1 $6,000 $6,000 1 $6,000 $6,000 1 $6,000 $6,000
6 - Other Special 1,250 $30 $37,500 1188 $30 $35,625 1188 $30 $35,625 1250 $30 $37,500 1250 $30 $37,500
6 - Other Parking Lot Rental 1 $1,000 $1,000 1 $1,000 $1,000 1 $1,000 $1,000 1 $1,000 $1,000 1 $1,000 $1,000
6 - Other Total $77,585 $77,585 $81,300 $81,300
7 - Festivals Festival Rental 1 $1,500 $1,500 1 $1,500 $1,500 1 $1,500 $1,500 1 $1,500 $1,500 2 $1,500 $3,000
7 - Festivals Band on the Bricks 8 $500 $4,000 8 $500 $4,000 8 $500 $4,000 8 $500 $4,000 8 $500 $4,000
7 - Festivals Total $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $7,000
8 - Finance Late Fees/Fines 200 variable $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000
8 - Finance Finance Charge variable $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000
8 - Finance Total $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
Grand Total $660,680 $691,709 $607,775 $792,233
Vacancy Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4
Impact of construction on Shed A, daily, other from base year (FY12) -5.0% -5.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Impact of construction on Shed C (1/3 constructed at time) -5.0% -33.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Number of Shed D tenants -20.0% 0.0% -10.0%
Rent increase over base year

Shed A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Shed C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%
Shed D 0.0% -20.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Daily 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Market Ventures, Inc.

w w w . m a r k e t ve n t u r e s i n c . c o m
118 W illiam Street 207.321.2016


Economic Impact Analysis

March 2, 2012
Table of Contents
1. Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 2
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3
4. Impact of Sales ........................................................................................................................ 4
5. Impact of Local Production .................................................................................................... 8
6. Impact of Construction and Operations ................................................................................ 11
7. Total Economic Impact ......................................................................................................... 11
Economic Impact Analysis Page 1

1. Summary of Findings
The economic impact analysis models the projected impacts of the changes to Rochester
Public Market based on the master plan developed by the consultant team led by TYLin. The
analysis assumes that all of the master plan elements are completed as proposed and the impacts
begin when all construction is completed. The analysis is limited to the city-owned properties
within the Market, not the food service, food production and food distribution businesses on
private property within and adjacent to the Market’s gates.
The chart below shows the change to economic impact if the proposed master plan
changes are implemented at the Public Market. The improvements will generate 291 jobs and
increase earnings $10.8 million annually. Over ten years, the region will gain $177 million of
additional output.
Change due to Output Earnings 10 year impact

Jobs
master plan (millions) (millions) (millions)
Market sales $10.7 $3.4 116.4 $107.3

Farmer sales $4.6 $0.9 41.8 $46.1
Market management $0.5 $0.1 3.9 $5.4
Construction $18.5 $6.3 129.0 $18.5
Total $34.4 $10.8 291.1 $177.2
2. Introduction
This report on Economic Impact Analysis accompanies the Market Analysis and the
Financial Analysis conducted by Market Ventures, Inc. (MVI) as part of its work on the
renovations of the Rochester Public Market Shed B (the “Wintershed”) and surrounding site.
The economic impact analysis models the projected impacts based on the master plan for the
Rochester Public Market developed by the consultant team led by TYLin.
The economic impacts to the region will consist of direct benefits in increased sales,
indirect benefits that flow from increased purchases of other materials and services, and induced
benefits to household incomes and consumption. For purposes of economic impact modeling, it
is assumed that all of the master plan elements are completed as proposed and the impacts begin
when construction is completed.
The master plan includes the following elements:
1. Creation of a new open Shed D in the space between Shed A and Commissary Row.
2. Winterization of existing Shed C with roll-up garage doors, which will provide
indoor selling space for existing Wintershed vendors during renovation of Shed B.
3. Redevelopment of Shed B at the same location and with approximately the same
footprint, except with expansion to accommodate the prepared food “kiosks” and
restroom facilities to replace the existing bathroom building.

4. Creation of a pedestrian-friendly plaza in place of the existing bathroom building
and expansion of the Market House to accommodate education and event facilities.
5. Construction of a new storefront building in the existing parking lot at the Market’s
west entrance on Union Street.
Rochester Public Market vendors are not required to report gross sales and the Market
does not have a tracking mechanism to estimate sales. MVI therefore relied on its experience
with other public markets that report sales. The principal purpose of the analysis is to estimate
the impact of the proposed changes to the Market, not the impact of the Market as it is today.
Therefore we are more concerned with the impact of proposed changes than absolute impacts.
These changes mainly come from additional and improved vending spaces and marginal
expected increases in sales. A precise estimate of the Market’s total economic impact on the
region would require from more precise sales information than is currently available.
Furthermore, the study was limited to the city-owned and operated facilities and does not
include the impact of the other retail and wholesale businesses adjacent and around the Market,
including the coffee shops, bakeries, wholesale produce distributors, flower and deli product
businesses, brewery, etc. These businesses depend on a healthy and thriving market to be
successful and they contribute substantially to the Market’s total economic impact.
3. Methodology
The methodology for measuring economic benefits of specific projects or programs on
affected regions is well established in the field of urban economics. Systematic analysis takes
into account inter-industry relationships within regions, because these relationships largely
determine how regional economies respond to project or program changes. The tool of regional
input-output (I-O) multipliers, developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and
customized for specific regions as RIMS II Multipliers, accounts for highly disaggregated inter-
industry relationships within regions. It is based upon BEA’s 2002 national benchmark I-O
table, which accounts for the input and output structure of more than 500 U.S. industries, and
BEA’s 2008 regional economic accounts, which show each region’s industrial structure and
trading patterns.
RIMs II Multipliers can be estimated by BEA for any region composed of one or more
counties and for any industry in the national I-O table. For purposes of measuring the
economic benefits of the Rochester Public Market, RIMS II Multipliers were customized for the
five county region around Rochester that make up the Rochester Metropolitan Statistical Area.
These counties include:
• Livingston
• Monroe
• Ontario
• Orleans
• Wayne
The table below shows the Final Demand multipliers for various industry sectors. The
Final Demand Multipliers account for all regional economic repercussions of generating an
additional dollar of sales or construction output.

RIMS II Multipliers for Rochester MSA
Final Demand Multiplier

Output Earnings Employment
Food services 1.4001 0.4240 17.5069
Wholesale trade 1.2885 0.4041 6.0673
Retail trade 1.3020 0.4237 13.6186
Real estate 1.2160 0.1063 3.7544
Construction 1.3875 0.4736 9.6282
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
The multipliers listed under Final Demand Multiplier include Output, Earnings, and
Employment. The Output column represents the total dollar change in output that occurs in all
industries in the regional economy for each additional dollar of output delivered to final demand
by the industry sector corresponding to the row entry (e.g., Food services). In this case, $1.00
of new sales in Food Services creates $1.40 in new economic output.
Entries in the Earnings column represent the total dollar change in earnings of
households employed by all industries in the regional economy for each additional dollar of
output delivered to final demand by the industry sector corresponding to the row entry. Here
$1.00 of new sales in Food Services accounts to $0.42 in earnings among all households.
Entries in the Employment column represent the total change in number of jobs that
occurs in all industries in the regional economy for each additional one million dollars of output
delivered to final demand by the industry corresponding to the row entry. Because employment
multipliers are based upon 2008 data, the output delivered to final demand in this instance is
represented in 2008 dollars. Here $1 million in new sales of Food Services creates 17.5 new
jobs in the region.
For a number of relevant industries, BEA also provides multipliers for Direct Effects.
This information is used for estimating the impact of sales of goods produced within the region.
(as described in Impact of Local Production, below). In each table under Direct Effect, entries
in the Earnings column represent the total dollar change in earnings of households employed by
all industries for each additional dollar of earnings paid directly to households employed by the
industry corresponding to the row entry. Entries in the Employment column represent the total
change in number of jobs in all industries for each additional job in the industry corresponding
to the row entry.
4. Impact of Sales
Determining the economic impact of the Rochester Public Market requires an estimate
of total sales generated at the Market. MVI utilized what it believes to be reasonable daily
average sales estimates for the vendors and per square foot estimates for the retail businesses in
the new storefronts, coupled with estimated vacancy rates for each calendar quarter. The sales
of any business in the Market could be appreciably more or less than these estimates. In fact,
the Market is made up of large, high volume vendors and small, low volumes ones.

Furthermore, sales on Saturdays are reported to vary considerably from Tuesdays and
Thursdays. As such, these estimates are meant to be a reasonable approximation of sales at the
Market, not a precise tallying. Market management concurs that these sales estimates seem
reasonable and might be somewhat low, which makes the analysis (appropriately) more
conservative.
As described in the Financial Analysis, the number of vendor stalls in each of the
Market buildings, both now and at the end of the master plan implementation, includes the
following:
Post
Number stalls FY12 Difference
Construction
Shed A 108 108 0
Wintershed 58 52 -6
Shed C 66 66 0
Shed D 0 48 48
Kiosks 4 4 0
Storefronts 0 4 4
Total 236 282 46
The following chart provides a method for estimating current Market sales. The chart
shows the number of stalls within each Market shed, the days of operation per week, and an
estimate for average vendor sales within each shed. Vacancy rates are estimated for each
calendar quarter. The sales projections are the product of the number of stalls, days per week of
operation, vacancy rates, and sales. This method estimates current total Market vendor sales at
$22.0 million.

FY12
Shed A Shed C Wintershed Kiosks Total
Stalls 108 66 58 4 236
Days/week (Jan-March) 3 3 3 3
Days/week (April-Dec) 3 3 3 3
Average sales $850 $700 $900 $1,500
Vacancy
Jan-Mar 50% 60% 10% 25%
Apr-Jun 25% 30% 25% 20%
Jul-Sep 10% 20% 35% 10%
Oct-Dec 25% 30% 25% 20%
Sales
Jan-Mar $ 1,790,100 $ 720,720 $ 1,832,220 $ 175,500 $4,518,540
Apr-Jun $ 2,685,150 $ 1,261,260 $ 1,526,850 $ 187,200 $5,660,460
Jul-Sep $ 3,222,180 $ 1,441,440 $ 1,323,270 $ 210,600 $6,197,490
Oct-Dec $ 2,685,150 $ 1,261,260 $ 1,526,850 $ 187,200 $5,660,460
Total $ 10,382,580 $ 4,684,680 $ 6,209,190 $ 760,500 $22,036,950
The next chart uses the same methodology but substitutes the expected number of stalls
in each Market shed following implementation of the master plan, with the major addition
being the creation of a new Shed D. The model assumes that the vacancy rate for the combined
sheds A and D increases because there are now more stalls available, and it assumes that the
vacancy rate for Shed C decreases because the shed is winterized and therefore more attractive
to both vendors and customers in the winter. Similarly, the vacancy rates for the Wintershed
decrease once the facility is rebuilt and the physical environment is made much more inviting.
Post Construction
Shed A&D Shed C Wintershed Kiosks Total
Stalls 156 66 52 4 278
Days/week (Jan-March) 3 3 3 3
Days/week (April-Dec) 3 3 3 3
Average daily sales $850 $700 $1,100 $2,200
Vacancy
Jan-Mar 60% 40% 5% 20%
Apr-Jun 30% 25% 15% 15%
Jul-Sep 15% 20% 20% 5%
Oct-Dec 30% 25% 15% 15%
Sales
Jan-Mar $ 2,068,560 $ 1,081,080 $ 2,119,260 $ 274,560 $5,543,460
Apr-Jun $ 3,619,980 $ 1,351,350 $ 1,896,180 $ 291,720 $7,159,230
Jul-Sep $ 4,395,690 $ 1,441,440 $ 1,784,640 $ 326,040 $7,947,810
Oct-Dec $ 3,619,980 $ 1,351,350 $ 1,896,180 $ 291,720 $7,159,230
Total $ 13,704,210 $ 5,225,220 $ 7,696,260 $ 1,184,040 $27,809,730

Based on these estimates, total Market sales increase to $27.8 million, so sales under the
sheds increase by $5.8 million.
The proposed four storefronts represent 7,800 square feet of new space in the Market.
Assuming sales per square foot of $300, the storefronts contribute $2.3 million of new revenue.
Adding the $2.3 million in sales to the $27.8 million in sales within the sheds equals total sales
on city-owned property of $30.1 million.
The total difference between Market sales in 2012 and after master plan implementation
is therefore $8.1 million. Again, this analysis ignores the many businesses on properties around
the city-owned property and therefore under-represents total sales occurring at the Public
Market.
To determine the final demand multipliers, these sales are divided into three categories:
food service, retail, and wholesale. Estimates are made for the percentage of Market sales in
each of the three categories at present and when the master plan is implemented, and then
factored into the total sales estimates determined above:
Source of Sales 2012 Sales Post Construction

Food Service 10% $2,203,695 13% $3,919,465
Retail 85% $18,731,408 83% $25,024,276
Wholesale 5% $1,101,848 4% $1,205,989
Total 100% $22,036,950 100% $30,149,730
Employing the RIMS II multipliers for each type of business results in the following
economic impact:
FY2012 Final Demand

Sales Output Earnings Employment
Food service $2,203,695 1.4001 $3,085,393 0.4240 $934,367 17.5069 38.6
Retail $18,731,408 1.3020 $24,388,293 0.4237 $7,936,497 13.6186 255.1
Wholesale $1,101,848 1.2885 $1,419,731 0.4041 $445,257 6.0673 6.7
Total $22,036,950 $28,893,416 $9,316,121 300.4
Post Construction Final Demand

Food service $3,919,465 1.4001 $5,487,643 0.4240 $1,661,853 17.5069 68.6
Retail $25,024,276 1.3020 $32,581,607 0.4237 $10,602,786 13.6186 340.8
Wholesale $1,205,989 1.2885 $1,553,917 0.4041 $487,340 6.0673 7.3
Total $30,149,730 $39,623,167 $12,751,979 416.7
Different $8,112,780 $10,729,751 $3,435,858 116.4

Based on these assumptions, current sales of $22.0 million generate $28.9 million in
annual output within the region and increase area earnings by $9.3 million. The Market
generates 300 jobs in the region. When the master plan is implemented, Market sales of $30.1
million will generate $39.6 million in annual output within the region and increase earnings by
$12.8 million, while generating 417 jobs.
Sales are estimated to increase $8.1 million at the Market on account of the master plan
changes. The increased economic impact of implementing the master plan is $10.7 million of
annual output in the region and earnings of $3.4 million, with an increase in 116 jobs.
Over a ten year period, assuming sales stay at the same level, the aggregate impact of the
master plan changes to the Market on the region would be $107 million.
5. Impact of Local Production

A significant portion of the products sold at the Rochester Public Market come from
local farmers and food producers. The economic impact analysis therefore looks at the affect
these sales will have on the region.
RIMS II multipliers are available for detailed industries within the Rochester MSA. The
relevant industries for this analysis and the multipliers include:
Final Demand Direct Effect

Industry Output Earnings Employment Earnings Employment
Vegetables 1.3727 0.2525 11.9091 1.5395 1.2362
Fruit 1.3286 0.2895 14.4871 1.4118 1.1578
Nursery 1.2622 0.3249 13.5085 1.2679 1.1647
Cattle 1.1418 0.1925 7.7308 1.726 1.4606
Bread 1.6078 0.4157 11.809 1.7717 1.3915
Other food 1.6215 0.3029 7.5342 2.1353 1.7499
To estimate how much of the Market’s sales come from local production sources, the
total quantity of sales was divided by the number of stalls in the Market associated with those
products. Based on information provided by Market management, there are 326 vendor stalls in
the Market. As part of the Market Analysis, each vendor was categorized as follows:

Using the number of stalls as a proxy for sales, the Market’s total estimated sales ($22.0
million) were then multiplied by the percentage of sales to create an estimate for sales within
each vendor category. A second estimate was then made as to the percentage of products sold
by those vendors that likely comes from local production sources (labeled “% produced in
region”). This percentage was then multiplied by the vendor category sales to provide an
estimate of the dollar value of products that are produced in the region:
The same percentages were then applied to the sales expected when the master plan is
implemented:

Finally, these amounts in these categories are consolidated and then plugged into the
RIMS II multipliers chart:
FY2012 Final Demand

Vegetables $4,376,295 1.3727 $6,007,340 0.2525 $1,105,014 11.9091 52.1
Fruit $2,917,530 1.3286 $3,876,230 0.2895 $844,625 14.4871 42.3
Nursery $439,387 1.2622 $554,594 0.3249 $142,757 13.5085 5.9
Cattle $135,196 1.1418 $154,360 0.1925 $26,025 7.7308 1.0
Bread $770,617 1.6078 $1,238,998 0.4157 $320,346 11.809 9.1
Other food $419,108 1.6215 $679,584 0.3029 $126,948 7.5342 3.2
Total $9,058,133 $12,511,107 $2,565,715 113.6
Post Construction Final Demand

Vegetables $5,987,403 1.3727 $8,218,909 0.2525 $1,511,819 11.9091 71.3
Fruit $3,991,602 1.3286 $5,303,243 0.2895 $1,155,569 14.4871 57.8
Nursery $601,145 1.2622 $758,765 0.3249 $195,312 13.5085 8.1
Cattle $184,968 1.1418 $211,187 0.1925 $35,606 7.7308 1.4
Bread $1,054,316 1.6078 $1,695,129 0.4157 $438,279 11.809 12.5
Other food $573,400 1.6215 $929,768 0.3029 $173,683 7.5342 4.3
Total $12,392,834 $17,117,000 $3,510,268 155.5
Difference $3,334,701 $4,605,894 $944,554 41.8

At present, the vendors at the Market are estimated to sell $9.1 million worth of regional
foods. This leads to $12.5 million in output within the region, $2.6 million in additional
earnings, and 114 jobs. When the master plan is implemented, the vendors at the Market are
estimated to sell $12.4 million worth of regional foods. This leads to $17.1 million in output
within the region, $3.5 million in additional earnings, and 156 jobs. The difference between
now and then will be $3.3 million in additional sales to local farms and food producers, which
creates an additional $4.6 million in output, $0.9 million in extra earnings, and 42 additional
jobs.
Over a ten year period, assuming purchases stay steady each year, the total economic
impact of additional sales to regional farmers and food producers would be $46 million.
6. Impact of Construction and Operations

Based on the consultant team’s initial design concepts, the master plan’s development
program includes an estimated construction budget of $13.3 million. At present, annual
operating costs of the Market are $600,000 and are expected to grow to $1.1 million. The
following chart shows the relevant RIMS II multipliers for construction and real estate
management:
Final Demand
Value Output Earnings Employment
Construction $13,319,300 1.3890 $18,500,508 0.4723 $6,290,705 9.6888 129.0
Real estate $1,051,518 1.1872 $1,248,362 0.1885 $198,211 8.5552 9.0
Total $14,370,818 $19,748,869 $6,488,916 138.0
The total economic effects of constructing the improvements to the Market would
represent a one-time increase of $18.5 million by all industries affected by the construction
activity. Earnings in the region would increase $6.3 million and employment would increase by
129 jobs. Upon completion of the master plan improvements, the economic effects of
construction on the output of the region would come to an end.
The annual operations of the Market will increase the region’s output by $1.2 million
annually, increase earnings by $198,211 and support 9 additional jobs in the regional economy.
Compared to the current operation, real estate management costs will rise $450,000, resulting in
$536,000 in economic output, $85,000 in additional earnings, and 4 additional jobs.
7. Total Economic Impact

The charts below combine each of the different types of economic impact. The first
chart shows the Market’s total economic impact once the master plan is implemented.
Aggregating these various benefits, the Market stimulates $76.5 million in annual economic
output, increases regional earnings by $22.8 million, and creates 581 jobs. Assuming that sales
grow at 3% per year, over ten years the economic impact of the Market is estimated at $598
million.

RTM Total Impact Output Earnings 10 year impact
Jobs
post construction (millions) (millions) (millions)
Market sales $39.6 $12.8 416.7 $454.2

Farmer sales $17.1 $3.5 155.5 $196.2
Construction $18.5 $6.3 0.0 $212.1
Total $76.5 $22.8 581.2 $876.9
The second chart shows the difference between current operations and implementation
of the master plan. Aggregating these various benefits, the changes to the Market stimulate
$34.4 million in annual economic output, increase regional earnings by $10.8 million, and
create 291 jobs. Over ten years, the economic impact of the changes to the Market is
estimated at $177 million.
Change due to Output Earnings 10 year impact

Jobs
master plan (millions) (millions) (millions)
Market sales $10.7 $3.4 116.4 $107.3

Farmer sales $4.6 $0.9 41.8 $46.1
Construction $18.5 $6.3 129.0 $18.5
Total $34.4 $10.8 291.1 $177.2



Consumer Survey

February 10, 2012
Table of Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 2
Findings........................................................................................................................................... 3
Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 3
Residence, method of transportation, and travel time................................................................. 7
Purchasing Trends ....................................................................................................................... 8
Visit Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 10
Preferences for Year Round/Indoor Market ............................................................................. 19
SNAP ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Additional Products and Restaurants .................................................................................... 20
Challenges and Comments ........................................................................................................ 22
Written Responses ........................................................................................................................ 24
Why not visited ......................................................................................................................... 24
Additional Products .................................................................................................................. 24
Particular Food Businesses ....................................................................................................... 26
Challenges or Problems ............................................................................................................ 29
Ideas for Improving RPM ......................................................................................................... 38
Additional Thoughts ................................................................................................................. 48
Rochester Public Market Survey Page 1 Market Ventures, Inc.

Overview
The online and in-person survey is meant to capture the opinions and practices of a wide
range of individuals, including active Rochester Public Market (RPM) shoppers, people who
have shopped at the Market in the past but have stopped coming regularly, and residents who do
not shop at the Market. This information complements the other research conducted as part of
the market analysis for the Rochester Public Market Renovation and Expansion Project.
Methodology
Market Ventures, Inc. (MVI) designed the online survey instrument using a methodology
and core question set that has been used successfully at other public markets around the country,
modified to meet the needs of RPM. After being reviewed and edited by the project team and
the client, the online survey tool Zoomerang was used to administer the survey. A paper version
of the survey instrument is attached to the end of this report.
Once the survey was ready for distribution, the client publicized the link to the survey
using a variety of methods, including a press release, the RPM website, and the Friends of the
Market Facebook site.
The survey was launched November 4, 2011 and closed on December 8, a total of 33
days. The survey was viewed a total of 640 times and 306 surveys were completed.
Since people choose whether to take an online survey and they require Internet access to
reach it, an online survey is not a random sampling procedure. It is likely that those people most
interested and passionate about RPM responded. The demographic profile of online survey
takers is also different from the general population: it is younger, wealthier, and less racially
diverse. Therefore, answers to the survey should not be assumed to be representative of the
entire population but rather a set of ideas and opinions that might provide insight into the
Market’s development.
In addition to Zoomerang, copies of the online survey were printed and volunteers at the
Market asked shoppers to complete the survey on Saturday November 26. Again, these
respondents were not randomly selected. 91 paper surveys were completed. The demographic
profile of people who took the survey at the Market is different from the online respondents:
older, less wealthy and more diverse. Therefore, the results from the two groups are presented
separately in this report.
The survey aimed to gather information about perceptions of the Market as well as
opinions about potential changes to the Market. The survey asked about where people usually do
their shopping for fresh fruits and vegetables. Those respondents who have visited RPM were
asked their mode of travel, travel time, and frequency of visits. A series of questions focused on
comparing the Market with other places they shop. The survey also solicited all respondents for
their opinions about having certain items at a new indoor market as well as any specific local
food businesses they would like to see at the Market. There were two opportunities for
respondents to provide their open-ended feedback and opinions about the Market and proposed
changes.

Findings
Demographics
The survey included questions about the respondents’ gender, age, household size,
occupation and income level.
Respondents were asked to indicate where their age fell among 12 standard categories.
For presentation purposes, the chart below combines ages into five categories:
In what age range does your age fall?
Age
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0% Paper
20.0% Online
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Under 25 25-39 40-54 55-70 Over 70
In the surveys collected at the Market, the largest age group was respondents 55-70 years
old (45%) while the largest groups of respondents online was 25 – 39 year olds (34%). The
smallest group for both surveys was those shoppers over 70.
Household sizes ranged from 1 to 10, with the average being 2.7 and a median of 2 in
both the online and paper surveys. As the charts illustrate, most survey respondents live in
households with two people:

Including yourself, how many people live in your household?
Household Size
60%
50%
40%
30% Paper
Online
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In terms of household income, online survey respondents were skewed toward upper
incomes while respondents at the Market were more representative of all income levels. 23% of
paper survey respondents reported 2010 total household income below $25,000 compared to 9%
of online survey respondents. In both data sets, the largest grouping is customers reporting
earnings between $25,000 and $75,000 (55% at the Market and 54% online). A much larger
percentage of online respondents (38% compared to 22%) reported household income above
$75,000.
Household Income 2010 Household Income 2010

(Paper) (Online)
<$25k
>$75k <$25k 9%
22% 23%
>$75k
38%
$25-75k
$25-75k 53%
55%

In what range did your 2010 total household income (before taxes) fall?
Household Income 2010

30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
Paper
10.0% Online
5.0%
0.0%
Less than $15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000
$15,000 to to to to to - or more
$24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999
Respondents were asked their current occupation. In both data sets, the largest group of
respondents was those who work full time (61% on paper and 68% online). The respondents in
the Market were more likely to be retired.

Which term best describes your occupation?
Occupation
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Paper
30%
Online
20%
10%
0%
Work Full Work Part Stay at Student Retired Not Other
Time Time Home Employed
Parent
The majority of respondents online and at the Market were women, and the majority of
respondents for both data sets were white, although the online respondents have a larger
percentage women and less diversity than the in-Market respondents.
Gender Gender
(Paper) (Online)
Male Male
Female 40% 35%
60% Female
65%

Ethnicity Ethnicity
(Paper) (Online)
African-
American
African- Other 2% Other
American 13% 9%
6%
White White
81% 89%
Residence, method of transportation, and travel time
Respondents at the Market reported living in 36 different zip codes while those online
covered 48 different zip codes. In both data sets the large majority of zip codes were from the
City of Rochester (73% at RPM and 71% online). Only 1% of respondents for each data set
were from out of state. The largest concentrations of respondents came from the Market’s zip
code (14609) and zip code 14620.
Zip Codes Zip Codes

(Paper) (Online)
Out of Out of
State State
1% 1%
Outside Outside
Rochester Rochester
26% 28%
Rochester Rochester
73% 71%

Most Prevalent Zip Codes
14624
14622
14621
14612
14610
14580
14618 Online
Paper
14450
14534
14617
14607
14620
14609
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Purchasing Trends
In both data sets, almost all survey respondents (94%) were the primary shoppers for
their household. When asked how often they typically shop for fresh fruits and vegetables at
their local grocery store, a majority of respondents from both data sets reported about once a
week, although respondents at the Market were more likely to shop more than once per week.

How often do you typically shop for fresh fruits or vegetables at your local grocery store?
Frequency Shop at Grocer for Fruits

and Vegetables
60%
50%
40%
30% Paper
20% Online
10%
0%
> Once/ ~ Once/ Every 2-3 Once/mo or Never
week week weeks less
When asked how often they shopped at public markets or farmers’ markets, the large
majority of respondents surveyed at RPM shop at a market at least once a week while online
respondents were split fairly evenly between “about once a week,” “every 2 or 3 weeks,” and
“once a month or less.”
How often do you typically shop for fresh fruits, vegetables, flowers or specialty foods at a
public market or farmers' market?
Shopping Frequency at Public/Farmers'

Markets
70%
60%
50%
40%
Paper
30%
Online
20%
10%
0%
> Once/ ~ Once/ Every 2-3 Once/mo or Never
week week weeks less

When asked where their households purchase most of their fruits and vegetables this time
of year, in both data sets the two most popular responses were Wegman’s and RPM.
Respondents at RPM preferred RPM slightly over Wegman’s (41% to 34%) while online
respondents were more prone to shop at Wegman’s than RPM (49% to 33%). Other stores
mentioned in small numbers include Tops, Price Rite, and Walmart Supercenter. These results
suggest that Wegman’s is the most clear competition to RPM.
Where does your household purchase most of its fruits and vegetables this time of year?
Most F&V Shopping This Time of Year

60%
50%
40%
30% Paper
Online
20%
10%
0%
Wegman's RPM Palmer's Other Aldi
Visit Characteristics
Almost all online respondents (98%) had visited RPM at some point and 96% of survey
respondents had been to RPM during the past year. The 4% of respondents who had not been to
the Market in the past year were asked why not. The eleven responses can be found at the end of
this report. The reasons they mention include the Market’s location, being too busy, the
Market’s hours, and no longer living in the Rochester area.
Respondents who had been to RPM in the past year were asked a series of question about
their visits.
Market shoppers were asked when they typically decide to visit RPM. A little over half
of online respondents plan their visits one or three days in advance compared to 44% of Market
respondents. 30% of online respondents decide to visit the Market the morning of their visit
while 37% of Market respondents decide that day. This information can help guide marketing
decisions: potential shoppers need to be reminded of the opportunity to shop at the Market very
close to the day of their visit.

When do you typically decide to visit the Rochester Public Market?
When Decide to Visit RPM

60%
50%
40%
30% Paper
Online
20%
10%
0%
Morning of visit 1-3 days before visit 4+ days before visit
As the charts entitled “Travel Time to Market” show, in both data sets the largest group
of respondents (50% paper and 54% online) traveled between 5 and 15 minutes to reach the
Market. Many customers travel fairly long periods to reach the Market: the next most common
travel time was 16 - 30 minutes.
How long does it typically take you to get to the Rochester Public Market?
Travel Time to RPM
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0% Paper
20.0% Online
10.0%
0.0%
Less than 5 5 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 60 61 - 120
minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes
Market shoppers were asked if they generally go to the Market with family, friends or
others or did they go alone. Respondents were asked to check all that apply and the largest
number of responses was for family members. The next most common response was alone.

Do you generally go to the Market alone or with friends or family? Check all appropriate boxes.
Shopping Groups
60%
50%
40%
30% Paper
Online
20%
10%
0%
Alone Family Friends Others
Respondents to both surveys have been visiting RPM a long time. Nearly half of the
online respondents and a third of Market respondents had first visited more than 10 year ago.
Only 13% of respondents at the Market and 16% of online respondents reported their first visit
was within the last 2 years.
When did you first begin visiting the Rochester Public Market?
First Visit to RPM

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25% Paper
20%
15% Online
10%
5%
0%
Within the 1 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years More than
past year ago ago ago 10 years ago
Respondents were asked what days they have visited the Market district in the past three

months. Not surprisingly, nearly all had visited the area on Saturdays. Online respondents were
more likely to have visited the area on other days of the week, including days when the farmers’
market is not operating. This is valuable baseline data that can be used to test the Market’s
ability over time to attract consumers to the area on more days of the week.
In the past 3 months, what days of the week have you visited the Rochester Public Market
district? Check all appropriate boxes
When asked how many times they had visited RPM in the past three months, the majority
of respondents in both data sets reported visiting 1 – 5 times. There is a core group of very
dedicated Market customers who shop at least once a week: 27% of the paper respondents and
23% of the online respondents reported coming 11 or more times in the past three months. Only
8% of online respondents reported not visiting at all.

In the past 3 months, how many times have you visited the Rochester Public Market?
Visits to RPM
in Past 3 Months
50%
40%
30%
Paper
20% Online
10%
0%
0 1-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16+
Respondents at the Market showed a high degree of likelihood to shop at the Market
year-round: nearly 60% reported shopping at the Market during the winter months, compared to
less than 40% of the online respondents. There was also a large spread between the likelihood of
shopping during the fall, with online survey respondents dropping to 54% compared to 87% of
those interviewed at the Market (since the paper survey was administered within the Market in
November, all of these respondents should have reported visiting the Market during the fall
season).
In the past 12 months, which time periods have you visited the Rochester Public Market?
Check all appropriate boxes.
Seasons
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% Paper
40% Online
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan - Mar Apr - Jun July - Sep Oct - Dec
The largest group of both online and paper respondents reported always having known
about RPM. Many have also heard about the Market through word of mouth from family,

friends, or co-workers. About 15% of paper respondents said they have heard about the Market
because they have walked or driven past it, compared to only 6% of online respondents.
Traditional and new media sources appear to reach only a small fraction of respondents.
How have you heard about the Rochester Public Market? Check all appropriate boxes.
How Heard About RPM

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Always known Friend, family, Newspaper, Internet Drove/Walked Radio, TV Other
about it co-worker magazine By
Paper Online
Market shoppers were asked how satisfied they were with their visits to RPM and if they
would recommend the Market to others. Overall, both groups of respondents are satisfied with
their visits. However, customers in the Market showed overwhelming satisfaction: 62% rated
the Market a 10 and 85% rated it either a nine or ten, compared to 31% of online respondents
who rated the Market a ten and 53% who rated it either a nine or ten. Frequent visitors (those
who reported visiting the area at least six times in the past three months) were more satisfied
with the Market and more likely to recommend the Market to others.

Overall, how satisfied are you with your recent experiences at the Rochester Public Market?
Satisfaction with Recent Visits to RPM

70%
60%
50%
40%
Paper
30%
Online
20%
10%
0%
1-5 6 7 8 9 10
Again, both groups showed strong likelihood to recommend RPM to others, with in-
Market respondents more likely to rate the Market a nine or ten (97%) compared to online
respondents (80%).
Likelihood to Recommend RPM

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Paper
50%
40% Online
30%
20%
10%
0%
1-5 6 7 8 9 10
Market shoppers were asked to compare different attributes of RPM to other food stores
in the region using a five point scale that ranged from one “Does not describe at all” to five
“Completely describes.”
For prices and value of products, RPM rates consistently high among both groups of
respondents, with mean scores of about 4. Interestingly, the Market scored slightly higher for

“lower prices and bargains” among online respondents, perhaps reflecting RPM’s reputation as a
low-price food environment particularly when compared to the Market’s primary competition,
Wegman’s. The Market scores a bit lower for quality and variety, particularly among online
respondents. Respondents from lower income households rated the quality of products at the
Market more highly than upper income respondents (mean of 4.2 for respondents in households
earning less than $25,000 per year compared to a mean of 3.7 for respondents in households
earning more than $75,000). Not surprisingly, frequent shoppers (those who reported shopping
at the Market at least six times in the past three months) rated the Market more highly than less
frequent shoppers in nearly every category.
For each attribute, please indicate how the Rochester Public Market ranks compares to other
food stores in the region. If an attribute does not apply to your visits to the Market, leave
blank.
RPM Ratings 1
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 Paper
2.0
1.5 Online
1.0
0.5
0.0
Better quality Better value Better variety Lower prices
and bargains
RPM scored highly among the next series of comparisons, ranking very high for “Feels
like shopping in an authentic market” and “better availability of locally grown products,” as well
as “More fun to shop here.” The Market scored lower for being clean and there is a statistically
significant difference between how this was rated among respondents with different household
income levels. Upper income respondents scored the Market lower for cleanliness compared to
lower income respondents (mean of 3.7 for upper income, 3.8 for middle income, and 4.2 for
lower income). Men rated cleanliness lower than women but otherwise there were no
statistically significant differences between men and women for these ratings.

RPM Ratings 2
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 Paper
1.5
1.0 Online
0.5
0.0
Better Feels like More fun to Sellers are Shopping
availability of shopping in shop here friendly and area is clean
locally grown an authentic helpful
foods market
RPM scored lower, and there was more variation between the two groups of respondents,
for the next set of comparisons. Respondents (and particularly online respondents) compared the
Market less favorably for “Easy to move about” and “Adequate parking is available.” Less
frequent shoppers rated the parking at 2.7 compared to frequent shoppers at 3.2. Personal safety
at the Market and feeling their car is secure ranked fairly high for both sets.
RPM Ratings 3
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 Paper
2.0
Online
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Easy to find Easy to get Easy to move Feel safe Adequate Feel car is
what want there about walking parking secure/safe

Preferences for Year Round/Indoor Market
Respondents were told that Rochester Public Market was exploring the potential for
creating more indoor vending space and increasing the days of operation. They were then asked
to rate on a scale from one (Not at all interested) to five (Extremely interested), how interested
they would be in various items being offered at RPM.
Paper respondents showed higher interest in all of the suggested changes for the Market.
For the first set of questions in the chart below, they scored “Additional ethnic foods” and “Local
music performances” most highly.
The Rochester Public Market is exploring the potential for creating more indoor vending space
and increasing the days of operation to encourage local residents to visit throughout the week
and during the winter. Please indicate your level of interest in having each item below available
at the Market.
New Items 1
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50 Paper
2.00
Online
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Add'l ethnic Add'l public Cooking demos Indoor seating Local music
foods gathering spaces areas performances
In the second group of questions, there was strong interest for more storefront businesses
and for the Market to be open on Sundays. There was less interest for the Market to be open on
Fridays, particularly among online respondents. There is a statistically significant relationship
between employment status and interest in Friday hours: full time workers were less interested
in Friday hours than non-full time workers (mean of 3.2 compared to 3.9). Upper income
households were less interested in Sunday hours, with a mean of 3.8 compared to lower income
households with a mean of 4.5 and middle income households with a mean of 4.0. Interestingly,
infrequent shoppers were more interested in seeing Sunday hours (mean of 4.1) compared to
frequent shoppers (mean of 3.8). Similarly, infrequent shoppers were more interested in having
more storefront businesses (mean of 4.3) compared to frequent shoppers (mean of 4.0). This
suggests that infrequent shoppers might shop more regularly if the Market had Sunday hours and
more storefronts.

New Items 2
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00 Paper
1.50 Online
1.00
0.50
0.00
More More storefront Open Fridays Open Sundays
restaurants/ food businesses
prepared foods
SNAP
Respondents were asked if they were aware that SNAP (food stamps) can be used at
RPM. 87% of the in-Market respondents knew that SNAP could be used in the Market,
compared to 73% of online respondents. Lower income respondents were significantly more
aware than upper income ones: 82% compared to 66%.
Additional Products and Restaurants

Respondents were asked to list up to three additional products as well as three specific
Rochester area food businesses they would like to see offered at RPM. Information from both
data sets was combined for this question. The responses were organized into 14 categories with
ethnic foods and a butcher/deli topping the list. 66 additional products, both food and non-food
items, were also listed and are included at the end of this report. The specific foods listed
included in the “Specialty Foods” and “Prepared Foods” categories are also listed.
For specific business, the top 15 restaurants are included on the chart below. The Ravioli
Shop and Abbott’s Frozen Custard were the most popular businesses however 90 other
businesses were listed and 47 types of restaurants and food items were also mentioned. In
addition 24 non-food related businesses were listed. A complete list of all these responses can be
found at the end of this report.

Additional Products for RPM
Ethnic Foods (prepared and produce)
Butcher/Deli
Wine/Beer
Dairy
Prepared Foods
Baked Goods
Specialty Foods
Bulk Groceries
Seafood
Grass Fed/Organic Meats & Dairy
Produce
Clothing
Organic Produce
Arts & Crafts
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Local Businesses for RPM

The Ravioli Shop
Abbott's Frozen Custard
Nathan's Soup and Salad
Aladdin's Natural Eatery
Savoia Pastry Shoppe
Simply Crepes
Skip's Meat Market
Nick Tahou Hots
Zweigle's
Dogtown
Balsam Bagels
Lori's Natural Foods Center
HedonistArtisan Chocolate
Donuts Delite
Dinosaur Bar-B-Que
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Challenges and Comments
Respondents were asked what they feel are the biggest challenges or problems facing
RPM and their ideas for improving the Market. All responses are listed at the end of this report.
The most prominent concerns and ideas for improvement were related to parking and
accessibility. Numerous respondents said that limited parking was a major deterrent for them
even attempting to visit the Market. Some said if they did not arrive by 7 am there would be no
parking available. Increasing accessibility to the Market through public transportation and
making the Market more pedestrian and biker friendly were common suggestions for addressing
the parking problem. Several respondents suggested shutting down the neighboring streets to
cars during the summer and/or on weekends.
In addition to parking, the most common themes for challenges were:
x Strollers and crowds of people blocking the aisles and making it difficult to access
vendors
x Too cold in the Wintershed during the winter
x Too many ”junk” vendors
x Too many non-local food vendors
x Poor quality of produce from wholesalers
x Limited hours
x Safety of surrounding neighborhood (some respondents felt these concerns were
warranted while others felt it was more of a perception problem)
Many of the above themes were reiterated as ideas for improvement: expanding the size
of the Market, heating the Wintershed to make it more pleasant during the winter, decreasing
the number of produce wholesalers and “junk” vendors, increasing the number of local vendors
and extending the hours of operation. Some other themes for improvement included:
x Provide maps or offer tours of the Market so shoppers know what products are available
x Distinguish between local and non-local vendors with clear signage
x Increase advertisement of RPM through local media to attract suburban shoppers
x More public seating options
x Organize Market by type of vendor: separate food vendors from non-food vendors and
separate seafood from produce vendors
A few insightful ideas for improving the Market include:
x Cooking demos with recipes using products that are abundant that week. NOT high
profile chefs making restaurant fare. Teaching cooks who make approachable fare for

families. Also - a “concierge” station where people can stop, ask where to find a certain
ingredient or pick up recipes of the week.
x I ALWAYS forget my bags! It would be great to have a place you can grab a reusable
bag - and return them. Like at Century Liquor they have those wine bags that they give
you - and you can bring them back to be used again when you have too many. Would be
a great opportunity for a sponsor!
x Publish a Rochester Public Market newspaper with news of the different venders, with
personal articles about the farms that show their products there etc., and place it in high
profile stores around the City to draw more attention and customers to the Market.
The additional comments were generally positive. Most respondents took the opportunity
to express their love and appreciation for the Market. Several people stated that the Market is the
reason they do not move away from Rochester. Many respondents were also concerned that
improvements might “commercialize” the Market. Respondents clearly appreciate the “rawness”
of the Market and want to maintain the current atmosphere. There was also a great deal of
appreciation for Market management and improvements already made. Below is a sample of the
additional comments:
x Best place in the world

x My parents brought me, I brought my children, my children bring their children, it’s more
than a tradition, we can count on finding fresh produce, fresh herbs, garden plants,
cheeses and specialty items without having to spend extra, the prices always beat the
local stores and there are choices.
x Rochester would be a far less desirable city without it!
x The gem of Rochester. We take all of our visitors there. My husband thinks of our Sat.
AM at the market as a weekly “date” we have with each other. And we inevitably bump
into folks we know, often to have coffee with. It is a treasure. (We used to get our flu
shots there in the office too.)
x The photo reminds me that the Wintershed is the least attractive part of the market,
needing expansion or reconfiguration. The management is commendable, it’s more of a
scene every year. The steady improvement, new off-site parking, walks, etc are
appreciated. Keep it up!
x You folks are doing a great job. My parents took me to the market frequently as a child.
In those years, it was a matter of economy. Now it has become fun. It reminds me of the
open air markets I have visited abroad. Saturday mornings are a mini vacation as well as
a shopping trip.

Written Responses
Why not visited
Why have you not visited the Market in the past year?
1. Convenience of the Fpt farmer's market during the season. Busy Saturdays the rest of the
year
2. Ghetto neighborhood
3. Have a young child now and have less time to do things
4. I forget and the hours are not convenient as I am a night shopper.
5. I forget its available, and just go to Wegmans as it is closer to my home
6. I live way too far away.
7. It is in the city, the hours are inconvenient, location is inconvenient
8. Moved away from the Roc
9. The Rochester Public Market is one of the biggest things I MISS about Rochester. I grew up
going to the market and I go EVERY Saturday when I am in town. I have lived in Texas for
40 years and LITERALLY think of the market EVERY SATURDAY.
10. To crowded. to many rude people. vendors are hawking.
11. We now have two young children (toddler and infant) who make it difficult to visit Public
Market. It is easier to bring them to the supermarket where they can sit in grocery cart.
Additional Products
Question 22: Please list up to three additional products you would like to see offered at the
Rochester Public Market.
Other Products
Florist such as Fiorvanti's or other local
Add a craft supply store. venders.
Affordable spices Flowers
Any other local products Freeze-dried foods
Beauty Products Freezing/canning supplies
Beer Brewing Supplies Fresh herbs
Beverages Fresh herbs and spices
Bird food. Fresh pasta
Candy Gluten free
Canned goods/non-perishables Ground coffee to purchase
Hoping still vendors for Christmas trees. We
Chef's supply shop for tree every yr. here, and vendors have

Other Products
been less in recent yrs.
EAS Nutrition Supplement products Ice cream
Electronics Ice cream
Ethnic musical instruments Kosher products
Livestock Larger variety of baking items
Local music CD's Pet adoption center
More black soap! Pet food
More fresh eggs Pie
More fresh herbs Pipes and Smoking Glassware
Quality, not-out-of-date packaged goods
More gardening plants in the spring (cereal, bread, etc.)
More gluten free baked goods! Reasonably priced pet foods (dog, cat)
More locally produced prepared products Rochester, Market Merchandise
More non food items seeds and garden supplies
More options in dried pasta Seeds for planting
Sophisticated holiday wreathes like Russell
More organic options used to make. It was our splurge evey yr.
More Organic products Spiritual
More variety of flowers Stone ground polenta
Music for sale by local musicians Stuart's Spices
Organic Sweets
Organic Pet foods Tofu
Organic products Tofu/soy
Trees provided by local farms and cheaper than
Organic section nursery's
Organic toiletries Vegan baked goods
Paper products (toilet paper, paper towels,
etc) Vegan items
Specialty Foods
A nut vendor like Rocky Peanut co. in
Michgan Olives
Finger Lakes prepared products (squash oil,
honey, Allen's Hill apple molasses,
dressings, rubs) Roast Chestnuts for cold days!
Granolas Specialty teas
Homemade bulk granola Variety of nuts
Locally made specialty foods, i.e.
chocolates, pasta etc. Salt varieties/regionals
Nuts in the winter (Niblack closes down in
winter).
Prepared Foods
Authentic Food Carts like in NY and More Food Vendors

Prepared Foods
Portland
Barbecue More prepared foods
Crepes Pizzeria/ pasta
Food trucks! ethnic.based Prepared food
Home made soups Smoothy booth
Juice vendor - grinding juice blends (carrot,
wheatgrass, ginger, apple etc) Southern type foods
Better selection of prepared foods and
Locally made processed foods. restaurants
More variety of prepared foods/ethnic foods to
Locally used product sandwich shop try
Non-Product Comments
A place where the non-food vendors can be
together to I can avoid them Jobs
Better labeling of organic/ locally grown
foods… Less imported produce
Less of the Junk Vendors (Shirts, Candles,
Better parking/traffic flow Incense)
Better product information (organize vendor
types together) More actual producers and fewer wholesalers
Better protection from the weather in the
winter More Amish/Pennsylvania Dutch items
Better range of foods... More days to shop
Buy as i need. Not the whole basket of More effort to distinguish locally grown or
apples, but just one or two processed food
Canned classes More indoor shopping during the winter
I cant think of anything else. its just about More live local musicians, especially young
perfect people
More locally grown products (less commercial
I find just about everything I need already! vendor items)
Inside seating Pretty much has everything one could want!
It offers pretty much everything Programs on teaching kids to eat/cook healthy
Particular Food Businesses

Question 23: Please list up to three particular food businesses from the Rochester
metropolitan area you would like to see located at the Rochester Public Market.
Specific Restaurant (1 or 2 mentions)

Abundance Co-Op Lee's Vietnamese Sandwiches
Amiels Leo Bakery
Andy's Lombardi's imports
Bagel Land Bagels Mahogany's Creations and Catering

Specific Restaurant (1 or 2 mentions)
Baker Street Bakery Mama Sans
Barilla Maplewood Meat
Beers of the World Marketplace Liquor
Brew Crafters Martusciello Bakery
Bugle Bagels Max's
CB's Brewing Company McDonald's
Charlie's Frog Pond Mighty Taco
Cheesie Eddies Ming's Noodles and Cuisines of Asia
Chester Cab Mise en Place
Chipotle Monica's Pies
Costanza Sausage New Taj India Cuisine
Country Sweet Nick's Deli
Dac Hoa Nino's Pizza
Detello's No. One Chinese
DiBella's Olindo Food Servies
Dollop Papa Joe's
Don's Originals Peacework Farms
Donna Marie's Bakery Perri's Pizzeria
East Ridge Donuts Peter’s Sweet Shop
Eco Bella Bakery Pittsford Dairy
El Dorado Mexican Restaurant Polska Chata European Delicatessen
Fido's Pontillo's Pizza
Finger Lakes Coffee Roasters Roc Brewing Company
Five Guys Rohrbach Brewing Company
Genesee Valley Organic CSA Salenas Mexican Restaurant
GR8 Sammich! (Food Truck) Shutt's Apple Mill
Gyromania Sinbad's
Halal Market Sol Burrito
Hartmann's Sausage Souper Spices Blend
Istanbul Market Starry Nites Cafe
James Brown's Diner Stever's
Jim & Ralph's Restaurant Sticky Lips
John's Tex Mex Sugar Mountain
Kelly's Pies Tap and Mallet
King and I Tart Yogurt
Lao Village Tavern58 at Gibbs
Lee's Oriental Food The Distillery
The Red Osier The Owl House
The Salad Man Tops
Three Heads Two Guy's Fries and More (Food Truck)
Tim Horton's Zonies Calzones

Other Types of Restaurant/Food Items
A good sushi place Grocery Store
A medeteranian food truck Ice cream place
A real louisiana type restaurant. Italian Specialty (pastas, etc.)
A small tavern Jamaican restaurants/Latina restaurants
Another Mexican restaurant Local farmer restaurant
Anything ethnic Locally made products such as chocolates
Locally made products such as
Bakery dressings/vinaigrettes
BBQ place Locally made products such as pasta
Beer/wine Mexican tacos etc...reasonably priced
Butcher Organic Grocer
Perogi stands....reasonably priced Not perogi
Candy guy...too expensive by him.
Chinese place Pizza
Cuban restaurant with those cuban sandwiches Restaurant for lunch and breakfast
Dairy products smoothy drinks...reasonably priced
Deli Sodas
Dim sum or anything else by Wayne Luong
(owner of Golden Port) Something local, original and flavorful.
Diner serving breakfast, like Jimmy's years ago Something local, original and fresh.
Ethiopian/Norh African cuisine Something local, original and healthy.
Ethnic food stores Something Puerto Rican or Dominican
Ethnic prepared foods Soul Food
Euro pkg goods (other than Ital & Polish which
are there now) Thai food / incredients
Finger Lakes Wine Upstate Dairy
Food trucks Wine Store
Greek
Other Products/Non-Food Business Comments

A cookware store
A used goods store.
A venue for jazz groups to perform as this is american music.
A/V Space
Artists
Bird House for bird food.
Bop Shop
Dollar Tree
Generosity Store
Great the way it is
Greater variety of vendors, ie: only a couple meat and fish vendors. encourage other businesses
to participate

Other Products/Non-Food Business Comments
How about a map of the vendors
I think it should be up for renewal every three years for the public to select.
More effort to distinguish locally grown or processed food
Not more businesses more local farmers!
Office Max
Pet food store
Pet Saver
Rather see start up / small business vs. already established Rochester business.
Record Archive
Restaurant supply or tools
Restaurant supply selling table cloths & cooking items (inside) like the Broadway Panhandler in
NY. I love the supply place that's there now, just bring it inside and make it larger.
Tours
Volunteers of America/salvation army
Challenges or Problems
Question 24: What do you feel are the biggest challenges or problems facing the Rochester
Public Market?
Online responses
1. Convenient parking; Too many sundries vendors taking up parking areas.

2. 1: parking 2: competition from or objections to from Wegman's stated in the past
3. Absolutely mobbed on Saturday, which is great except that the parking area in unable to
handle the amount of cars driving around looking for close parking. Better direction of
traffic in the lot and on the street would be a godsend.
4. Access to and from the market on saturdays
5. Access to parking
6. Access to the Public Market is convenient only by car. Improve RTS service and add
shuttle service from downtown. Vendors encroach into the already too-crowded aisles,
jamming the regular pedestrian flow, prolonging shopping trips, increasing demand for
parking.
7. Accessibility, Parking, and, sadly, after market hours, the neighborhood is still a little
sketchy if you have to walk far.
8. Adequate parking.
9. Angry that vendors,vendors with buildings will take up two parking spaces by their bldgs
or in the main parking area. Also there are wooden plallets often using parking spaces.

Sometimes there are orange cones blocking off parking spaces in the main area-especially
across from "straight" area
10. Attracting more people from the suburbs.
11. Balanced heat in the wintershed; allowing much more of the 'dollar-type' trinkets - could
overrun valuable food space; keeping the vendors happy while making the changes -
don't want to lose any!
12. Behavior of first time visitors (they don't know the rules?), traffic flow (both foot and
vehicle), businesses located in the market not being able to handle increased crowds
13. Bureaucrats trying to make it into an upscale shopping experience like the phony ones in
tourist areas. This is the real thing- leave it alone.
14. Can be extremely crowed and hard to get to the stands.
15. Can't think of any
16. Carts and Strollers. Makes getting around in the sheds very difficult.
17. City planners will destroy it
18. Cold weather
19. Creating enough parking for customers
20. Crowding and parking are the biggest issues. It is really difficult to move around and
shop at peak times. I also work Monday-Saturday for 30 weeks out of the year and being
open on Sunday would allow me to go to the market every week!
21. Crowding during peak market hours makes it a bit tight.
22. Crowding in the vendor areas, I go early around 6am to avoid the crowds. Also parking
is always an issue.
23. Crowds and parking. I won't go on Saturday because of the crowds and parking;
Difficult for handicap to move around.
24. Crowds, parking, and sellers of produce that isn't fresh.
25. Crowds. Produce is rotten more often or rots sooner than that of local food stores.
26. dealing with success, without ruining the authentic character of place and diverse
customer base.
27. Definitely parking. I'm deterred some days when i don't want to deal with it. Also quality
of some vendors produce... seems like they just sell rotten surplus.
28. During the winter it is pretty cold to take the kids out and hope
29. Extremely crowded and difficult to move around on Saturdays
30. For me specifically, parking/travel time--it becomes a 2-hour (at least) commitment on
Saturday mornings which (at this time) is hard for me.
31. Funding due to City budget constraints is probably the biggest challenge right now
32. Getting in & out during peak hrs, parking, & threading through the crowd

33. Getting the word out.
34. Handicap accessibility- wheelchair clogs the whole aisle. I don't go on Saturdays
anymore- way too crowded. Neighborhood surrounding market looks seedy
35. HOURS OF OPERATION
36. Hours; weather conditions in Rochester making it uncomfortable (or difficult) to bring
my kids to the Market on Saturday mornings (the only time I can really go).
37. I feel that too many non-food related vendors have been allowed to become a part of the
market. At its core the market is a food based resource not a mall. More often I now visit
Farmers' Markets than the RPM. I don't believe that some of the vendors are truthful
about products being homegrown.
38. I have a big problem with poor quality vegetables and fruits. I frequently experience a
50% loss on food I don't eat the day I buy it.
39. I have to go to the Market and Wegman's for my complete shopping list- if the market
had toiletries, greek yogurt and less expensive milk, I could do all my shopping in one
place.
40. I love the market and wouldnt change much. I would however like to see more organic
during the winter months since not much can be grown locally
41. I think that wagons that people pull around should not be allowed, the two wheel carts are
bad enough when it's crowded.
42. I think the winter season is a huge challenge for the market so more indoor areas would
help. I know some people are tentative about the area the market is in but that seems to
be changing.
43. I try to go before 6:30am on Saturdays so I don't run into these challenges: no parking,
overcrowding, and traffic snarls.
44. I'd go more often if I didn't have to get up so early to get a decent parking spot. Hate it
when there are cars circling around or idling waiting for a place to open up. And yes, I
know about the shuttle from the lot on the other side of union st.
45. I'm not always sure which vendors actually grow their stuff locally-- sometimes I feel
like it's been shipped in from someplace else. I'm sure sure if produce is overripe, so I
buy it and it goes bad before I use it. That's not your fault though.
46. Inflation of prices during peak months
47. Insufficient free parking, and overcrowding
48. Irrational safety worries; messy vendors; unsafe drivers; cold weather; vehicle circulation
49. It is difficult to move around sometimes because of all the people
50. It is far too crowded on Saturdays and parking issues are prevalent, including car break-
ins.
51. It is very crowded at times and hard to get around. The aisle is always congested.
Otherwise it is great!

52. It's so crowded that people are constantly running into you and you have to shove through
to get to different booths. Parking is extremely limited. During the cold weather the
tented areas turn into freezing cold wind tunnels.
53. It's too cramped and a lot of the food seems to have fallen off the truck, rather than
locally grown.
54. Its own popularity! Limitations of space on crowd size-- can only cram so many cars and
people into the main shopping area, and I don't even bother trying on holiday weekends,
it's so packed.
55. Lack of expansion and parking space.
56. Lack of lot parking and lack of safe neighborhood parking
57. Many vendors have poor hygiene
58. Limited non-car access.
59. Located in downtown and parking issues
60. Location
61. Location and close parking, and the crowd on Saturdays
62. Location- the market is not located in a safe neighborhood.
63. Bees- There are numerous bees at the market that deter some shoppers
64. Location/safety
65. Maintaining feel of "local farmer's market" and not getting too commercial
66. Managing the expectations and needs of regular shoppers vs. "tourist" shoppers
67. Many times it is so busy, it is hard to move around. This is part of the charm of the
public market, but also part of the problem. Parking is always a problem.
68. More effort to distinguish locally grown or processed food
69. Need more indoor space for shoppers and vendors especially in the winter time then more
peoples will come out and nave winter events also if you bought up some of the property
around the area and build condos and more store front sort of like cobbs hill area you
would make a huge profit
70. Neighborhood between Market and Main Street needs serious attention to increase
attractiveness to suburbanites and out of towners. Market grounds need to be redesigned
to emphasize pedestrians over other users. More bicycle parking and bike lanes between
downtown and market.
71. Neighborhood surrounding market, access roads
72. None
73. Not enough space...always banging in to people..wide isles and walkways
74. Overcrowding on saturdays (both in market area as well as in parking)
75. Overcrowding, seasonal restrictions, musician sign-ups.

76. PARKING
77. Parking - traffic control - tie ups while others are waiting & circling. Could there be
other alternatives? Shuttles, Lot monitors who watch spaces opening and direct people to
available spots. Seating spaces for prepared food vendors.
78. Parking -- location (residential neighborhood) -- space
79. Parking (shuttle train from across Union Street wojujld be good; Cold weather - more
indoor space would be great.
80. Parking & weather
81. Parking and being open more often.
82. Parking and congestion throughout the vending areas.
83. Parking and congestion.
84. Parking and distance between buildings. Seniors have money to spend but can not
always walk that much.
85. Parking and exposure. You don't know about it unless you know about it.
86. Parking and Rochester Weather
87. Parking and safety seem to be constant there. I always seem to find out about the events
at RPM after it's over.
88. Parking and safety!!
89. Parking and space
90. Parking and space to move, it always feel so crowded that most times I'm just more
willing to go to Wegmans, and pay more.
91. Parking and the area it is in
92. Parking and the safety of my vehicle, seems every time I park I have a new dent in my
car.
93. Parking and too many people from the suburbs. Selfish, pushy, arrogant people from the
suburbs. I liked market much better 10 years ago but am happy for it's success. I want it
to keep its embedded, humble roots and not become an overpriced "chic" Wegmans
clone.
94. Parking and winter weather
95. Parking availability, winter climate.
96. Parking can be a little difficult
97. Parking enforcement (1-side) on adjacent streets. Parking lot space.
98. Parking is a challenge later in the day on the days when the market is open.
99. Parking is a challenge; I pay to park in the $2.25 lot as it's easier in and out and not nearly
as congested. I also don't worry about my car being struck or damaged when parked
there.

100. Parking is adequate but could be better
101. Parking is always a problem depending on what time you get there. I usually do most of
my shopping on Thursday's (for heavy stuff) and Saturday's for socializing and things
that I can't get on Thursdays.
102. Parking is an issue for sure, if you don't get there by 6:00 it will take an extra 15 min to
1/2 hour for parking. There is a perception that it is not safe. I used to believe that
myself until I went there.
103. Parking is difficult and non-secure outside of the market; Can be very crowded
104. Parking is horrid. Too much money was spent on fancy gates, concrete islands. Instead
of just marking parking lines. Need more parking! Parking restrictions on side streets are
only for generating ticket revenue for city. They do absolutely NO good.
105. Parking is inadequate and security in parking is terrible. More free parking.
106. Parking of course, you need to get the word out to suburbia that it is really safe to come
to the Market and quality is very good. Who do they think the local growers are that
Wegmans buys from?
107. Parking on busy days!
108. Parking on weekends- used to go on saturdays. stopped cause of the parking. i now go
every other thursday morning before work as i work near the corner of park ave &
goodman. in and out in 20 minutes. i get 7 bags of groceries for $30 where i was getting
food at bjs for $80.
109. Parking seems to still be an issue for folks. Also there is always negative speak from
employees at Wegmans and Tops regarding the market. Being a former employee at one
of these retailers I can tell you that employees were told to not speak of the market, or at
least not in a positive light.
110. Parking space
111. Parking space and shopping space on busy Saturdays. One can hardly get to the counters.
112. Parking space!
113. Parking, and the market closes too early. Would love to see longer hours not necessarily
more days. I work evening shifts and it is tough some days to get there in time.
114. Parking, cramped shopping with too many customers
115. Parking, crowds
116. Parking, heavy foot traffic
117. Parking, lack of a map at the site or online
118. Parking, of course; environmental challenges such as garbage, recycling, composting;
119. Parking, perception
120. Parking, traffic congestion

121. Parking, weather. I love the market on rainy/snowy days, but it's obviously a trial for the
vendors outside, and a REAL trial for the elderly etc. It would be nice to have a larger
(like 2-3x the size) indoor market - IN ADDITION TO BUT NOT REPLACING the
outside sheds.
122. Parking, but I for me that is part of the adventure!
123. Parking, not enough creative stands and food carts which can offer lots of variety and
fun, TOO MUCH OF THE SAME FRUITS AND VEGETABLES!
124. PARKING!
125. Parking! There is never enough parking. I know the market has added lots - but it's still
not enough.
126. Parking.
127. Parking. Safety
128. Parking. We are veterans, and still got a ticket last month once; did not see the no
parking signage, and the street was filled with others parking there too. Better signage?
129. Also occasional vendors who sell produce that is not good. Bought 3 mangoes last month
and all were brown inside.
130. Parking. Even the solution is a problem because multi=level parking ramps or additional
lots reached by shuttle would destroy the intimate feeling of the experience. Good luck
solving that one!
131. Parking...safety
132. Parking and cleanliness are a major problem
133. Parking, location, driving through the boarded up homes
134. Perceived Safety of area and surrounding Neighborhood
135. Perception of the neighborhood area by people who are not used to being in that area or
have never been there.
136. Perception or lack of awareness of what's going on there.
137. Perception that the areas is dangerous and not enough parking.
138. Prices, quality, walking space.
139. Public transportation. It's impracticable to get there without a car.
140. Publicity
141. Resellers - it is too hard to find the farmers.
142. Safety and parking
143. Safety of the surrounding area. We are close enough to bike but would never consider it
due to safety issues of surrounding neighborhoods
144. Size limitations due to being boxed in by residential & other properties

145. So many people sometimes, its too crowded, especially in summer time, but that is not
such a bad thing as inconvenient and it doesn't deter me from going.
146. Sometimes it can be time consuming to get there simply because of the location in the
middle of the city. Also, it can be hard to navigate the Market with a cart or wagon
carrying the goods you have purchased.
147. Space for customers on busy days. Access to facility, some parking is a bit of a walk.
148. Space is somewhat limited; Traffic can be very tough at times; Misconception that it is
not safe
149. Suburbanites are reluctant to come into the city. I come from Brighton and have brought
friends from Brighton in Pittsford who are now regulars (but who had never been before
150. The carts! eliminate the carts! there are so many other public markets who have banned
them across the country because they are big, clunky and congest the entire marketplace.
151. The City could better brand the Market and the surrounding community.
152. The cold!; parking.
153. The declining neighborhood
154. The junk that is sold in shed b like socks and batteries. Gives bad impression. Lack of
labeling between which vendors are selling local produce and which ship in.
155. The onslaught of vendors selling closeout merchandise from five-and-dime stores needs
to stop. Cardboard boxes with hangers, brushes and soap does little to promote the MKT.
156. The parking is often a problem, parking too far is an issue.I have gone over 60yrs, so I
have found problems usually take care of themselves. The market was here long before
any grocery store.
157. The parking is very difficult on Saturdays. It is also very crowded and difficult to
navigate on Saturdays.
158. The time of day and lack of space.
159. The weather
160. There are several challenges but nothing that would really need changing... more
quirkiness (crowded, parking, layout) which is to be expected..
161. There is limited parking, it is very hectic because it is only open a few days a week, and
in the winter, it is freezing!!
162. Those who can't get there early morning don’t go there at all cause it’s said that all good
stuff gets sold real soon early morning.
163. Too crowded - on the weekends it’s a madhouse but that's a good problem to have.
164. Too many old fruits and Wegman’s won't take…; need more fresh local farmers…;
boulder coffee stole java joes name..now theres three javas on the same strip...what’s up
with that?; keeping the traditional feel while developing it...

165. Too many vendors offering non-local produce. I can be more sure of getting actual local
produce, vs. boxes off a truck from who knows where, at other markets (Brighton, South
Wedge).
166. Too small, it feels like people are being herded toward the end of the building. It's worst
when people are stopping to chat with others and they have big carts. Carts hurt people.
167. Traffic Flow; Pedestrian crossing at main entrance needs bridge over Union St.
168. Traffic, both cars and strollers/carts. trash cans are hard to find, especially on
Tues/Thursdays.
169. Traffic, Parking, location, quality of products
170. Transportation. There is enough parking, but the parking entrance on Union gets backed
up. I only live 2.5 Miles from the market but I still have to drive. The bus would take an
hour and 2 transfers, and the main-roads leading to the market for me are not bike
friendly.
171. Under utilized market space around the perimeter of the market.
172. Walk ways are to narrow especially when people stop in the middle and the carts people
bring with them.
173. We have issues when it's super packed on Saturdays & getting through the crowds with a
stroller. Its always a battle.
174. Winter time. Very cold temps outside can cause damage to fruits and veggies.
175. Winter.
176. With financial times as they are and with more & more people coming to the RPM, more
parking is needed
177. Wonderful economy
178. You're at the mercy of the weather. Winter is just too cold to go shopping anywhere that
isn't completely insulated from the elements.
Paper Responses
1. Access for people in cars (or better public transit); winter weather protection (much
improved already)
2. Adequate parking in warmer months
3. Automobile parking; Lack of adequate bicycle parking; Need bicycle valet area
4. Community awareness
5. Congestion
6. Crowded/parking
7. Flow of crowd
8. Food from China and Canada

9. Get around
10. Hours and days of operation
11. Less local farms
12. More parking
13. More parking, more handicap parking, more days of week
14. Neighborhood/safety
15. PARKING
16. Parking: Additional hours
17. Parking; additional vendor space
18. Parking; Expanding
19. Parking; safety
20. Parking and parking attendants
21. Parking and space to walk around in the market...but really parking
22. Parking and traffic
23. Parking and traffic and crowds
24. Parking, meeting spaces, indoor seating
25. Parking, security
26. Parking, traffic, crowds
27. Parking!
28. Parking!! Space to eat
29. Public transportation so that people without cars can get here
30. Seasonal food supply/weather - can't fix that!
31. Some form of expansion would be nice, on super nice days in the summer it gets crazy
here...tough to navigate
32. Space
33. Space for walking, congested walkway
34. Too crowded
35. Trying to "Pike's Market" it
36. Weather
Ideas for Improving RPM
Question 25: What ideas do you have for improving the Rochester Public Market?

Online Responses
1. A parking Garage, regulating farmers who have too many of the same items and making
the market more of a community social spot.
2. Add substantially more indoor space to have a selection of goods year round
3. Adding another shopping day
4. Additional hours and days that it is open.
5. Advertise in town Parks and Rec. brochures an activity where people can register for a
market tour (I would say on a Thursday morning). Make it a free event, or charge a$5 and
include coffee and a donut or something. I use the Town Rec. Dept. to find out about a lot
of activities in the area.
6. Advertising as well as better and more free parking.
7. Again, get rid of the 5and dime vendors or restrice them to the one area closest to RailRoad
street. Or restrict them to Thursday only.
8. All vendors should take the farmer's coupons and the EBT coins. Better pricing signs and
names of vendors on display and where they're from, also organic farms.
9. Although its crowded, there are underutilized areas, which could better contribute to the
function and character. More sitting places for folks who need a rest would be excellent.
10. An online directory on the city's website of the vendors (permanent vendors) and/or local
farms would be great information.
11. Arrangements w/ live local musicians --completely different in reality than described over
phone apparently & vendors have the ability to complain & send a musician packing, a
musician who is working hard on their craft, has prepared for their brief time to play,
traveled, parked, needs to earn $
12. Art galleries...
13. Ban strollers and wagons on Saturdays. Babies are not triremes! Wake up early or get a
sitter! Also, improved bus access.
14. Better Landscaping around main office and entrances; Pedestrian bridge over Union;
Allowing some permanent outdoor structures, like shelving, for vendors that have the same
continuous spot; create wind barrier for worst side of outdoor sheds for nicer experience in
bad weather
15. Better parking and more open days
16. Better parking is the primary one
17. Better pedestrian/car flow. more trash cans throughout the main market booths. Please don't
let the port-a-potty company empty them DURING market hours.
18. Better traffic direction on busy Saturdays.
19. Better visual of what is local and what is not locally produced

20. Brew pub or beer garden
21. Bring in more farms that sell their own produce (As opposed to vendors selling pre-
packaged Driscoll's berries and other produce that was not grown here. It makes me
wonder why it is so inexpensive and I am leery to purchase it.) More organic produce
22. Business opened 7 days a week. Developing a market kitchen that can be used for
demonstrations and classes. More bike parking.
23. Buy Trippi Food and expand. Block all parking within market area except for handicapped
to add more vending
24. Clean up the seafood vendors; Discourage the non food vendors ( junk stuff looks like it
was stolen); Security staff (parking ) are just plain NASTY; Samples; Vendors should not
try and sell food with mould
25. Clearer markings for local farmers stalls vs. cheap produce. More local farmers.
26. Close the market to traffic during operating hours in the summer. Only let vendors in to
the area and open it up to more vendors and foot traffic
27. Comfortable and attractive indoor vending areas
28. Community Supported Agriculture programs
29. continue to expand and be open more
30. Cooking demos with recipes using products that are abundant that week. NOT high profile
chefs making restaurant fare. Teaching cooks who make approachable fare for families.
Also - a "concierge" station where people can stop, ask where to find a certain ingredient or
pick up recipes of the week.
31. Could you organize it so that the flea market type items are on a different row than the
fresh produce?
32. Covered buildings with garage doors on both sides so it can be open in summer and not
need air conditioning and closed in winter and not need tents to keep the wind out.
Syracuse Market is best example of great buildings and a couple acres of parking.
33. Covered walkway between the 2 vendor areas. More indoor shopping, especially when
weather is not good.
34. Create more parking
35. Don't gentrify it too much- it's successful and 'fun' because of the prices, and the diversity.
36. Electric signs/internet application showing when the various parking lots are
full/occupancy counts. Summer time shuttle is good. More roving local choir/music groups
during holiday seasons. More musicans during summer/fall.
37. Enclose the shelters even if you have it where you can pull down the walls in the winter
time and supply some heat you would make more money the customers would come out
more and also you would get more or diffrent vendors there during the winter months it
would be a win win for everyone
38. Enlarge

39. Enlarge the Tuesday and Thursday sessions. Sometimes I've been and there were only two
or three stalls open.
40. Entertainment venue
41. Evening hours at least once a week to give people like me the ability to stop by on the way
home from work rather than having bring entire family on Saturday morning. Also, need
much larger, more sanitary indoor market space (important for both hot summer days as
well as winters).
42. Expansion!
43. Extend hours to 5 pm on saturdays and having a shuttle service similar to park and ride.
More people might come if it was easier to find parking.
44. Figure out something for parking
45. Focus on food (vs. clothing, etc.). I don't come when there's music because it's usually too
loud -- hurts my ears and ruins the shopping experience.
46. For the most part I love the public market and many improvements have been made over
the years. Of course if more parking was made available that would be a huge help.
47. Force vendors to stop smoking! See aforementioned parking issues. Post LARGE sign at
Main st whenever market is open. Maybe on the dumb pillar you build there. Many people
do not realize it's open on Tues and Thurs.
48. Get rid of the guy who sells potatoe chip/chip stand...RUDE might be totally unstable, too.
49. Handicap accessibility; more inside shopping; Shed open other days; I go early on Tu and
Th, so none of the bldg. businesses are open.
50. Have a local section or signs to easily designate name of farm and location. I go there to
buy local food, not food bought wholesale just like wegmans. Limit strollers to single wide
or have a lane or something. It becomes very difficult to walk around them.
51. Highlight booths that sell locally grown foods. Provide more space for people to move
around. Have a larger inside area to promote year-round shopping.
52. Hiring musicians to perform during market hours on a dedicated stage aside from street
performers. Remaining dedicated to local, low cost products. More used
goods/recycling/composting/social gathering. Don't sell out!!!
53. Homogenize the walking surfaces. Can be tough to navigate for those with walking/sight
disabilities; Get rid of the vendor space in the center (by the office) and return it to disabled
parking.
54. I ALWAYS forget my bags! It would be great to have a place you can grab a reusable bag -
and return them. Like at Centry Liquor they have those wine bags that they give you - and
you can bring them back to be used again when you have too many. Would be a great opp
for a sponsor!
55. I am happy with it as is.

56. I love the idea of it as a community center. I love the fostering of the arts with art shows
and music. Teach gardening techniques, make it a place for kids to discover the joys of
growing things, respecting the earth.
57. I love the market. I really wouldn't change much, it could lead to corporate businesses
moving in. KEEP IT LOCAL!
58. I love the open-air feeling, but there are times in January and February when it's just so
cold that the produce starts to freeze. Would it be possible to create louvered sides to the
sheds that could be used during the cold months?
59. I prefer local farmers and especially organic fruit and veg. It would be nice to have the
local farmers more identifiable by signs so I don't have to go up to them and ask if their
products are locally grown (vs wholesale vendors). I did have my car broken into during
the winter month about 8yrs ago
60. I think it's great now.
61. I think making transportation, and parking easier would help. Additionally help advertise
and promote the market more through the media. Change perceptions about dirtiness, help
people understand that it still happens in the winter months.
62. I think the improvements that have been made, so far, are wonderful. I look forward to my
Saturday morning shopping trip every week, year round.
63. I think the main problems for the market stem from larger issues within Rochester. Ie.
traffic gets backed up leaving south on Union due to people turning left at Main St. If the
turn-only lane into the Fast Trac gas station were changed to a turn only lane onto main st,
that would improve things.
64. I think the maket need to let more moblie food vendors in and alow them to sell some of
the same items...right now there is no competion between them.Besides not every vendor
cooks the same way.It's not fair to others trying to make a living if the food vendors have
the market to them self.NOT FAIR!
65. I think the RPD officers need to get out of their cars and circulate and help with traffic.
Their presence is important to shoppers and merchants.
66. I would like to see it open all weekend. Most folks work Mon-Fri and it is not always
feasible to go on Sat mornings....much as I love it. I did get a chuckle out of Question
21....I can't think of too much you can't buy at the market.
67. I would love for the moarket to beopen on Sunday as well as Saturday. In Syracuse, their
market is primarily food items on Saturday and Sunday is both food items and then vendors
of crafts, antiques etc (more like a farm market and flea market combo)
68. I would make it more colorful. People like color. For example use bright colors like in
other places like Florida.
69. I'd love to see a more centralized "food court" type area with picnic tables, maybe have
some music on the weekends. Perhaps an area for children to play.
70. Improve the inside selling areas...larger with room to move through. Work at keeping
things clean and picked up. Limiting number of cheap gadget sellers

71. improve traffic and parking, offer better quality products, organize vendor types together.
72. Improved indoor market building
73. In the winter create more of a St Lawrence Market feel with more indoor/heater
accomodations
74. Install a recycling center, for shoppers who rarely visit a supermarket.; Take leadership and
compost paper and food waste.; Negotiate with Zipcar for a priority carsharing pod. A
quick turn-over of cars delivers many people without consuming much parking.
75. It should be clearly labeled if food items being sold are local or shipped in from out of state
to be sold. It is sometimes too packed to walk through the aisles. Parking is not very easy.
Best thing ever would be to have the normal Saturday vendors on Sunday too! I would go
much more often
76. It would be really great to see the Public Market expand to accomodate the number of
shoppers there on any given weekend. Other than that, it is a really fun place to shop!
77. It's a fantastic space. Beat the weather and I have no complaints.
78. I've not been to a musical performance yet, but I plan to so I like that. I've never been
during the week, but that probably helps keep the crowds down. And, I tend to get there
after 9am and it's super-crowded then. BUt, we love going- love the prepared
foods/coffee/baked goods.
79. Just longer hours, the parking is kind of beyond your control. But longer hours might space
everyone's visits over a longer span of time easing the parking crush a bit
80. Leave it alone
81. Leave it alone - We won because of what it is and that people were comfortable shopping
in a casual environment
82. Less pavement more bricks...
83. Limit the number of school groups that visit on any one day. In the fiar weather they can
be overwhelming and make shopping very difficult.
84. Limit to local growers: Please do not pave the entire surrounding neighborhood - tearing
down viable buildings for parking is not good. I would rather see a shuttle or other creative
solutions than huge expanses of parking that would be empty most of the week.; Consistent
labeling of organic/local
85. Live music on all market days
86. Make it a happening place.. emerging artists playing guitar or violin etc…; Better public
transport
87. Make it more Appealing to the Public Eye. It could be a little bit cleaner looking too.
88. Make parking free throughout the area. Contract with all parking space areas to provide
free saturday/sunday and weekday parking for the market - just pay them a predictable
monthly fee out of booth rental proceeds. Expanded indoor market would be nice.
Make the entire market smoke free!

89. Making the Pavillion we shop under wider so we have more walking space for carts,
strollers etc.
90. Maybe having a paid parking lot areas would discourage bad behavior?
91. More and more and more parkıng spaces
93. More events like Bands on the Bricks makes the market more of a gathering place rather
than just "the market". Food raves would be cool where people are given a list of
ingredients to go find and then come back to a central Spot and have local guest chefs show
you how to prepare it.
94. More food choices; less dry good vendors.
95. More hours..more variety of vendors
96. More indoor seating areas
97. More indoor shopping during winter
98. More indoor shops.; Better layout.
99. More indoor space for year around use
100. More indoor spaces, open evenings or Sundays, increase walking spaces.
101. More indoor vendors.
102. More market vendor space would probably help. Bring in more vendors. Also, open
longer on Saturdays would be nice too.
103. More of the same!!!
104. More parking (somehow) and advertising. More special events.
105. More parking and a larger indoor area for winter time shopping
106. More parking!
107. More Parking. Its real tough to go shopping in the middle of the winter, warmer stalls
would be nice, but at the same time would take away some of the charm of the public
market.
108. More public art, easier parking
109. More seasonal offerings, attract people in the winter
110. More signs from 490 and 590
111. More space, open evenings and/or Sundays.
112. More spaces.
113. More 'themed' saturdays, more entertainment to draw crowds
114. More things for more people to reflect cultural diversity.
115. More vendor stations, more businesses
116. More/better indoor space; more environmental programs to deal with waste

117. Move the fish vendors away from the produce and bakeries. The odor is noxious and keeps
me from shopping at the vendors near them.
118. Moving the vendors back from the main walkway may help with the flow by giving people
with oversized strollers and grocery carts more space.
119. Need more indoor stores, or cover the outdoor vending somewhat.
120. none - don't mess with it too much - it's working beautifully
121. Offer wheel chair options to the elderly. Also, for Special Flower City Sundays keep the
rent below $40.00 a booth for vendors of all kinds. Looks like you are loosing vendors
because of the high rates you have been charging the last few years.
122. Onsite kitchen -- better arrangement of space -- more days of operation
123. Open more days, more variety of ethnic and specialty food products, more seating space
124. Open on more Sundays and evenings (in summer) would be great.
125. Open on Sundays; Open in several weeknight evenings; Open a warehouse for better winter
experience; More local food and produce; Severely limit vendors that don't sell local food.
126. Organize like a grocery store. Separate the resellers from the farmers.
127. Orientation program for new shoppers to teach them not to just stop in the middle of
heavily trafficked areas. More signage to help navigate.
128. Pack the vendors in more tightly outside the main shelter during summer months, to make
it seem more like a carnival or festival. Allow buskers.
129. Parking
130. Parking and more covered shopping areas
131. Parking!!!! and an area for drop off and pick up people or large purchases
132. People with bldgs need to move their large trucks and vans etc away from the main parking
for cars esp. on tuesdays, thursdays and saturdays. More enforcement of no dogs
133. Perhaps a small electric powered shuttle bus to quickly bring folks from the far reaches of
the parking lots
134. Please be open on Sunday for food and produce!
135. Please eliminate the use of pull-behind carts.
136. Please install more outdoor seating. In good weather, when one purchases prepared food -
i.e breakfast from a stall or cart vendor --- THERE IS NO WHERE TO SIT WITH A
FRIEND AND EAT. Yes Scotts, the Empanada Stop have a few seats(not enough) try
purchasing from Chuck or Sonny - we need benches.
137. Provide shuttles from the downtown parking garages to/from the Public Market
138. Publish a Rochester Public Market newspaper with news of the different venders, with
personal articles about the farms that show their products there etc., and place it in high
profile stores around the City to draw more attention and customers to the Market.

139. Put all the farmers in one location and all the gloves, purses, sunglass retailers in their own
section, especially the perfume & incense dealers. I think they should be seperated.
140. Put walls on the stalls so it's warmer and protected from the wind during the spring, fall and
winter.
141. Remove all the vendors who don't sell food, wine, produce or things to plant Particularly
the trinket vendors and such
142. Remove the boarded up homes in the vicinity - create new single family housing, parks,
green space etc..
143. Run a Saturday shuttle from East End Garage to Mkt entrance. Police on Peck, other back
streets enforcing 1-side parking on summer Saturdays.
144. Set up recycling of cardboard, metal, wood, etc. Collect waste veggies and fruit for
composting. Then sell the compost. Right now the city DPW just comes in at 3pm on
Saturday and picks up everything and mixes it together and sends it off as trash. No
recycling.
145. Shuttle buses from a further parking location to ease congestion, winterizing one of the
sheds to bring more winter traffic
146. Signage for those that don't know where it is!
147. Somehow help with congestion of people. Parking has gotten better with additional lot.
148. Spread out the vendors a little so its not so cramped. keep the areas clean, including the
"behind the scenes" areas. security around parking areas
149. Summer - Some evening hours. 4-8?
150. Take it step by step and see how each goes. Avoid big leaps and/or shocks to the ambiance.
151. Tends to be congested, so more space between vendors. More adequate parking.
152. The South Wedge farmer's market only allows products grown within 100 miles. I wish the
Public Market had some kind of system to notify shoppers of whether or not a vendor was a
local grower. I've had multiple vendors try to tell me that produce with upc stickers had
been grown on their property.
153. The Sunday market is probably a good idea given the volume on Saturday.
154. Tighten back of booth orderliness but don't suppress charm; KEEP UP THE GOOD
WORK. THE RPM is one of Rochester's jewels. Don't yuppify it! Bring back Jimmy's (?)
diner--Java Joe's is too yuppy,cute,and expensive
155. Train (steam) display to accent the original history.
156. Try to minimize the auction buying vendors. their produce does not last as long. for things
not grown locally it is ok but for items grown locally i prefer the farmers
157. Warmer temperatures in Jan. or Feb!
158. We love the market but at times it could be cleaner. More indoor spaces, heat the outdoor
sheds in winter.

159. We love the market! Soend about $60.00/wk. there, and about the same amount at
Wegmans on non perishables and laundry soap, etc. Have bought 3 copies of the
cookbook.
160. Widen the walkways, maintain a cleaning meat market area.
161. Wider aisles maybe?
162. would be better not sell live animals is no longer a shame to see them locked up taking cold
in the winter and that they are in the sun in the summer they suffer there,no water or food,
they are always hungry
163. Would be nice to have some heat in the winter.. probably not practical but a good challenge
to work on!
164. Would be nice to see the neighborhood come up a bit and look like "Park Ave" area.
165. Would love to see it look more like Chelsea Market in NYC
166. You're going in a good direction with all the neighborhood improvements, as well as
market infrastructure. More indoor space is the the real need, but not big cavernous space.
Somehow make it warm.
Paper Responses
1. Better labeling of quantities, prices and products on the vendor level

2. Bicycle Benefits Program (Scott Wagner 585-880-7643)
3. Bicycle Valet Parking
4. Bigger area
5. Covered seating for eating prepared lunch/breakfast
6. Dedicated motorcycle (even in winter) and bicycle parking; new brick paving; Remote lots
and shuttles (protected) to limit non-vendor cars
7. Expansion
8. Extra days - Sundays
9. Improve flow both vehicular and pedestrian
10. Improve outside seating area along the sidewalk of indoor market area
11. Improve parking
12. Indoor sitting space
13. Keep up the good work. I am very happy to have the market here. I like that you are asking
for our input...
14. Larger area
15. Leave it as it is. Don't make it too commercial! Don't want another Wegmans

16. Live entertainment
17. Make it bigger and be open more often
18. More farmers
19. More indoor venue - especially in winter
20. Better parking
21. More info from vendors - they are too busy to talk
22. More inside vendors
23. More parking
24. More parking; Maps of vendors and where from
25. More parking. Shuttles from off-site parking.
26. More seating
27. Move
28. Only parking
29. Parking
30. Possible enclosed area for the winter? Wind gets to be tough
31. Purchase some of the vaken (ibid.) (perhaps meant "vacant lots")
32. Put stores/restaurants in empty buildings
33. Sections categorized
34. Small wheeled carts for when you get too much - for borrow or rent
35. Spots for yahoos to stop and yak without bunching aisles
36. Traffic better controlled
37. Wider vendor lanes, better organized flow through vendors and shoppers
Additional Thoughts
Question 33: Last question! Please share any additional thoughts or comments about the
Rochester Public Market.
Online Responses
1. It is the most interesting and wonderful place in Rochester. It would be better if the
surrounding areas were better, with better/safer multi-modal access to the Market. Would
also like to see Market as a demonstration site for green technology and initiatives
2. A great place,don't kill it. More auto-free zones at the market except for handicapped
access like the center court area. The special events at the market are good. A better tie to

and publicity about existing transit, perhaps sponsor some market-oriented bus stops on
Main/Goodman. Bike racks.
3. A real treasure and the kind of thing that the trendy foodie crowd should want to be
involved in. Rochester does a terrible job promoting itself precisely because we're always
trying to make something new rather than allow what is organically successful to be more
successful with some civic involvem
4. Absolutely love the place. Been going for at least 40 years ever since I moved to
Rochester. I've seen it change over the years. There were times when I was ready to give
up on it (when left-over produce was being brought in from the Buffalo market.) Those
were sad times, but it's amazine now.
5. All my friends from other cities are seriously jealous of our market, even the ones from
Austen and especially the ones from NYC.
6. Always enyoy the atmosphere at the Market.
7. Have been going since I first move to Rochester, as a student, in 1972.
8. Awesome city experience!!
9. Best place in Rochester to shop!. Would love to go on Sundays for food, too, but the
"other" junk (dealers who are looking for a quick buck)turns me off!
10. Best place in the world
11. Better parking
12. Can I get a job there?
13. Fun- would love to get there more often.
14. Glad it is here!
15. Glad we won the contest, what is the money being used for?
16. Great experience. I bring family from out of town and they are impressed.
17. Great place to go and shop!
18. Great place, great value, tons of fun!! love bringing guests, meeting family and friends to
start our Saturdays.
19. How about modifying some of the outdoor stalls so that swing down panels could be used
in the winter to help keep things from freezing. Like garage doors. Do this with one
section/area on a trial basis. Reduce the wind and freeze damage of foods in the winter.
20. I am a big fan. The focus needs to be the food. Locally grown, locally processed. None of
the cardboard box vendors with closeout plastic goods.
21. I attended the Foodlink Festival of Food event there and it was wonderful. I'd like to see
more of similar events there.
22. I do like the market but I limit myself to what time I will actually go due to how congested
it can be down there. Otherwise, love going!

23. I enjoy the Public Market ALL year long, even in winter, people think I'm crazy but I love
it. Good quality food and lower prices, and being on a fixed income that is important to me.
Thank-You!!!!
24. I enjoy the variety of of the produce and the atmostsphere
25. I have been going there for a long time. Love the market! Wish the cookbook was a more
reasonable price.
26. I have been going there for years. I think we have one of the best public markets in the
country. It is nice to be able to purchase locally grown produce and be able to interact
directly with the farmers. The variety is incredible and the prices are great! I hope that
never changes.
27. I have loved the market for over 60 years. The only improvement I could see is more space
- both for parking and shopping.
28. I hope you are serious in your effort to expand/improve the market.
29. I just realized that it was open year-round. Maybe somehow advertising that fact might be
helpful in increasing clientele. Peace.
30. I love being there for the food, walking and people, I just wish I didn't have to have my car
damaged every time I park there. I don't park crooked, I'm aware to leave ample room on
each side of my vehicle too.
31. I love going to the market, but I have so much to do during the weekdays and Saturdays
that it is hard for me to get there. I would love to go more often!
32. I love going to the public market , I am originally from Tennessee and when we have
company from Tennessee, that is one of the first places I take them, I think we have the
best market I have ever been to. I love the food, clothing, plants, flowers, I just love it
all..Thank you for it.
33. I love it
34. I love it there
35. I love it there!!
36. I love shopping there and can get in and out quickly. We have a small household so it is
especially good to buy small quantities of fresh veggies/fruit.
37. I love the atmosphere there, but often forget about it and don't shop there as often as I
should.
38. I love the market and love to buy local. Better signage or maybe a directory would be great
to indicate local growers. Weed out the wholesalers that bring in garbage food.
39. I love the market but sometimes just the thought of dealing with all the people keeps me
home on a Saturday morning. The crowds tend to be more than I can handle sometimes.
40. I love the market! It would be nice to somehow celebrate the veteran shoppers and
administrators that have helped make the market what it is today.
41. I love the market!!

42. I love the market!! I do want to know who has locally grown produce without having to
ask. Sometimes I feel I am not told the truth. :)
43. I love the market, and I wish more people understood what a valuable institution it is. It is
truly a place where all of Rochester comes together, because we all eat! I think we can use
the market as a place to build a stronger and more informed community through dialogue.
We just need to facilitate
44. I love the market. I like to keep my money local and my food healthy and delicious.
45. I love the public market I can spend $40 dollars and get 4 or 5 full bags of food. Can't do
that anywhere else, with such wonderful ambiance and diversity.
46. I love the Public Market! It is definitely one of my favorite places to shop. There is always
a good selection of quality products and the atmosphere is wonderful. Keep up the good
work!
47. I love the public market! It's how food should be brought to the community. Wegmans is
great, but when you stop and think about the processed foods and carbon footprints,
convenience starts to seem like an easy way out. Think local!
48. I love the public market. It's one of my favorite things to do each week and makes me feel
like part of a vibrant urban community.
49. I LOVE THE ROCHESTER PUBLIC MARKET AND THEIR EMPLOYEES AND
VENDORS!!!
50. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
51. I love to go there EVERY Saturday when I am in the area, regardless of the weather. My
grandfather was a vendor in the 1950's and I went with him on Saturdays, and have great
memories of the RPM. I visit ALL farmers markets wherever I go even Costa Rica and
compare all with the RPM
52. I love what you guys do! Keep up the great work!!!
53. I love you guys!
54. I participated in a holiday baking contest 2 years ago sponsored by the Friends of PM. The
judges had no skill or expertise at baking, they were no catagories, anything chocolate won.
It felt bad and rigged. If you are going to sponsor public competitions be above board.
meveelzenga@hotmail.com
55. I truly love the Market! If my neighbors don't wake me up so much in the middle of the
night next summer, I will be there a lot more.
56. I wish it were open on Sundays in addition to Saturdays - maybe the crowds would thin
out. The Tues/Thurs 6am-1pm is not condusive to those who work, so a weeknight or
Sunday would be better.
57. I wish the enclosed building was open during the week
58. I wish they could take over the old vineyard and put it back to it's glory.
59. I would like some benches or someplace to sit, restup and then stay longer

60. I would rather take out of town friend to hte RPM than Wegmans, so a better winter venue
would be GREAT!
61. I would say dısorganızed and very lımıted parkıng space and need more closed shelters for
fall and wınter shoppıng
62. If I could make one change it would be for the current food vendors (Cherry's, Empanada
stand, etc) to be given some money to help upgrade their enclosures for the winter season.
63. It is a gem!
64. It is a great place! Improve on it's strengths and consider opening on additional days.
65. It is a treasure, but still not aware of all that it offers. Perhaps tours of the Market on off
days.
66. It is a wonderful community asset that should continue to grow!
67. It is one of my favorite places in Rochester! Promotes civic pride
68. It is the heart of Rochester
69. Its a fantastic place to shop, wish we shopped there more often. Its a very unique
experience. Open later would be nice, open more often would be nice, but you are dealing
with mostly farmers here, so the customers need to bend a bit also, its not a grocery store
after all.
70. It's a wonderful, fun place to shop! Rochester is lucky to have it here and I especially
appreciate the commitment that has been made to it with the recent upgrades!
71. It's fabulous! Though we do need to add parking (& reclaim many of the lost spaces)and
give us some benches scattered here and there
72. It's great
73. It's such a great asset for Rochester! There's so much potential and great movement in
there the last year!
74. Its the best place to shop in Rochester!
75. It's the coolerest!
76. It's wonderful and deserves to grow.
77. I've never shopped anywhere like it. It's always an adventure! Never know what you
might find or who you'll run into that you know. I hope any changes you're considering
won't change the character of the place.
78. I've visited many cities in the US and Canada.. this is the most robust market i've seen. So
much energy and excitement. We started coming back when our son got his first apt. Love
the diversity - ages, cultures, all of it. Thank you for keeping it alive! (also love the jazz at
java's!!)
79. Keep finding unique ways to do what you do.
80. Keep it clean. Perhaps a map of a complete circuit through the market, by maps or markers,
for newcomers who like to browse.

81. Keep up the good work!
82. Keep up the good work! You're #1!; The rich ethnic and income mix of the marketers has
always been the most precious part of my RPM experience. It takes me 2-3 times as long
to shop there as in a store and is 10 times more fun.
83. Keep up the great work!
84. Keep up the great work! Love it there!
85. Lady in office has sing-songy voice over PA system. Irritating and pretty much useless.
Bathrooms are nice and clean. Scotty's (?) has best breakfast in town. Quick, reasonably
priced, and always HOT!
86. let some new moblie food units in and let them sell what they want stop letting the other
food units have full control. competition is good for all.more that a couple selling hot dog
or fry's is only helping the market to make people happy.LET NEW FOOD VENDORS IN
WITH AN OPEN MENU.STOP REGULATING !
87. Live music please
88. Look forward to seeing renovations.
89. Looking at this photo, I'm reminded of other markets ie Westside in Cleveland where all
vendors have a uniform booth space with a sign over it At a glance you can look down the
line and see who has what. has a more "street of shops" look
90. Looking forward to more shops with reasonable prices, and it expanding.
91. Love giving business to local farmers.
92. Love it
93. Love it - a great experience. I wish I could make it more often.
94. Love it - it's a very importnat, weekly part of my life and a mojor reason why I choose to
stay here in Rochester rather than move somewhere else
95. Love it here and look forward to visiting every week.
96. Love it there!! vendors are wonderful and helpful!
97. Love it! Love the crows, hearing Joan the announcer, the overall experience. It's a
Rochester gem.
98. Love it! Plan on shopping here for many years. Pavement surrounding barns needs repair,
re-leveling. Clearly marked, possibly larger area for handicapped pkg.
99. love it! even the crowds!
100. Love it! Just wish I lived closer :)
101. Love it, but really wish there was a better parking situation.
102. Love it. everyone is welcome, everyone is on equal footing at the market - color, ethnicity,
age, race - all disappears.

103. Love the market, love the whole melting pot feeling...love being around so many diverse
people...so fun...wish we had a mexican stand selling tacos/burritos....would be great to
have a stand selling smoothies, reasonably priced too.
104. LOVE the market. Best resource in the area! Love Joan's announcing.... she keeps us
laughing and listening while visiting.
105. Love you guys. Don't construe any of what I said here as a criticism. The market is the
heart of Rochester, and if it stayed just the way it was I'd be satisified.
106. More buskers all over rochester!
108. More local farmers!
109. My family and I enjoy the RPM and the experience of shopping and bargain hunting there.
110. My favorite place to be on a Saturday morning!! It would be nice to learn more about the
regular vendors at the market. I see the same people every week, but it is often too busy to
chat with each one. Signs or some way to feature merchants would be nice
111. My parents brought me, I brought my children, my children bring their children, it's more
than a tradition, we can count on finding fresh produce, fresh herbs, garden plants, cheeses
and specialty items without having to spend extra, the prices always beat the local stores
and there are choices.
112. My whole family loves the market! We go regularly with the kids in tow. Please continue
to have your holiday events, which my family loves.
113. My wife and I have made the market a regular part of our weekly shopping since our return
to Rochester in 1983.I (husband) am native to Rochester and had been going to the market
with my father since 1960.Father's parents used market since 1920's
114. New York state has become a very expensive city to live. The Public Market is such a
great place to find good value, sure sometimes quality is lacking but that is because we
have seasons and cannot grow produce year round. I love the diversity of the people and
the food. Please don't change much!
115. Only,.. PLEASE, please do not let them continue to sell live animals
116. Overall, great job. What a great resource!
117. PARKING, PARKING, PARKING, REACH OUT TO LOCAL UNIVERISITES and
bring in more original food options!
118. Please get rid of the pull-behind carts
119. Putting fish vendors in a narrow enclosed building is like a gruesome horror movie that you
can smell.
120. Really love it..only real complaint is that a lot of the people that go their to buy are rude
and you have no control over it.
121. Rochester had to cut jobs the economy is in trouble and now with midtown and everthing
else we need to carefully place our $$

122. Rochester would be a far less desirable city without it!
123. Simply the best!!!!!
124. Thank you for a wonderful market! More Sundays would be great!
125. Thank you for all that you do!
126. Thanks for all your hard work improving the parking situation! Much <3 to Juan & Maria's,
The Garlic Guy, Papardelle's, and 7 Bridges!
127. Thanks for the survey!
128. The Flour City Bakery makes some of the best food I have ever eaten.
129. The gem of Rochester. We take all of our visitors there. My husband thinks of our Sat.
AM at the market as a weekly "date" we have with each other. And we inevitably bump
into folks we know, often to have coffee with. It is a treasure. (We used to get our flu shots
there in the office too.)
130. The market is a fun place, I have always enjoyed shopping and meeting friends their. I love
the new bakery,it is a great addition.
131. The market is a joy to go to in the spring summer and fall for fresh flowers,food and
produce. I feel that it is not taking advantage of it's full potential as a hub for growth as
well as a venue for bringing together all cultures and their traditional food.Make it a market
not a Wal mart!
132. The Market is one of my favorite things about Rochester! I've heard from some vendors
that there is talk if improvements, renovations. Don't wreck it in the name of 'making it
nicer'! The market is raw around the edges, and much of it's unique character comes from
that!
133. The market is our number one spot for fresh produce and specialty items (sausage from
L&R and cheese from Giordanos). We've managed to cut our food bill dramatically while
not sacrificing quality - and also supported an important initiative to buy local when
possible.
134. The market is totally under utilized - there should be reason to go there every day.
135. The new building renovation should be historic, include brick pavers
136. The only problem I have, is getting burned sometimes with less than acceptable products. I
purchase some lettuce this weekend, opened it up and it was rotted through. I need to be
alittle bit more aware of the freshness of some of the vendors. Live and learn...I love the
market!!! Its so fun
137. The photo reminds me that the Wintershed is the least attractive part of the market, needing
expansion or reconfiguration. The management is commendable, its more of a scene every
year. The steady improvement, new off-site parking, walks, etc are appreciated. Keep it up!
138. The Public Market is an excellent place to shop but it needs to have better spacing, be
cleaner and offer a more organized approach. It takes too long to go from one end to the
other. I also take issue with the fact so many foods during the summer months are from
elsewhere (California etc).

139. The public market is one of the reasons that I continue to live in Rochester, when I could
move to a location with better jobs in my professional area. From what I have seen and
heard from others, the market is unique to the rochester area, and it is hard to find other
places on par.
140. The Rochester Public market should be and is proud of its image. I love the Sunday garage
sales, the vendors, and then the special event days. I enjoy finding the unique items for
presents at holiday time. The flowers, colors, and smells are the best any day.
141. The woman who does the announcements is fantastic!
142. Their is money to be made there you have to spend money to make money the market is in
a good place but their is room for improvement you can do it.
143. To drive upwards of 20 mins or more parking needs to be resolved. I have done more local
farm stands as a result...if I.can't be there.by 7 am I won't go
144. Until the neighborhood around the market is better, there will always be setbacks with the
market. Evening events will be unsuccessful due to the risks in that neighborhood. With
that said, I want the market to succeed as it is an asset to our community. Thank you.
145. Vendors selling designer knock offs should not be permitted at all. Junk vendors should be
kept to a minium. Food should be the focus on Tues, Thurs & Sat.
146. Very multi cultural and I like that.
147. We are there every Saturday unless it is extremely cold on that particular Saturday.
148. We lived out of town for a year and I missed the market (and also realized there is nothing
like it anywhere else! even in the "Garden State). I am hesitant to offer too many
suggestions to change because I love it exactly how it is right now (and I go on Thursdays
because parking is easy!)
149. We love it! It's one of the best things Rochester has going for it.
150. We love the market... but we fell in love with St Lawrence Market (Toronto). The indoor
market with tons of food selections and vendors. And a lot of room to walk around and sit
and relax. Our market is so squished together. Its hard to not get trampled. Space it out!
151. We love the RPM, there is room for improvements but a great place to cone
152. When time permits and I can get there, love it!
153. Woderful
154. Wud come there soon.
155. You folks are doing a great job. My parents took me to the market frequently as a child. In
those years, it was a matter of economy. Now it has become fun. It reminds me of the
open air markets I have visited abroad. Saturday mornings are a mini vacation as well as a
shopping trip.
156. You guys are magical. Keep it up.
Paper Responses

1. A treasure for Rochester
2. Actively seeking employment - market is a great networking opportunity!
3. Amazing multicultural place
4. Best I've ever been to
5. Best thing about Rochester
6. Can be too crowded; Stalls too close
7. Fun to come
8. Good place to meet
9. Great for my son - he's been coming since he was born!
10. Great place to meet, shop, enjoy friend and family
11. Great place to shop. Great local vendors, friendly people.
12. Great place!
13. Great place! Addicted to it!
14. Great value
15. I like it!
16. I love coming every Sunday whether I need something or not
17. I love coming here with my dad!
18. I love coming here with my daughter.
19. I love it as it is, don't want it "Pittsforded" up
20. I love it!!
21. I love market and run into old friends
22. I love the Public Market!
23. I love this place!
24. I love this place.
25. I really like the atmosphere, love the tastings and demos using local foods
26. I tell my friends to come
27. It's a great place to take in the city spirit
28. It's a local treasure.
29. Just moved to area
30. Keep it going. Best market ever!
31. Keep up the positive work!
32. Love it - miss coming when away. A great asset for Rochester!
33. Love it but the parking

34. Love it here
35. Love it!
36. Love it! Just don't turn it into a shopping mall/food court. Keep LOCAL quality. NO BIG
businesses. Occupy Rochester!
37. Love it!!
38. Love the market and enjoy signing its praises
39. Love this place. I'm going to hate the day I need to move from Rochester.
40. Love to come here with young daughter
41. Love you :)
42. More street performers
43. No other market compares. I love this market!
44. Overall a wonderful place to buy food.
45. Parking!
46. Please continue to do what you're doing
47. Public Market is awesome
48. Thank you for being here
49. This is by far my favorite place that is uniquely Rochester. It is THE place I bring visitors.
50. Too many "junk" vendors.
51. Unique and historic - should be promoted more as a tourism destination (maybe it is). Good
work!
52. Very good place to shop compared to other places
53. We love you guys and are excited about #20
54. Weekly pilgrimage
55. Would like origin of food clearly listed everywhere i.e. local counties, US, Canada, Mexico,
other. I have bought some food esp. garlic and found that it was from China. I came here for
local foods at a reasonable price.

City of Rochester
Public Market Wintershed
Existing Conditions Report
SEPTEMBER 2011
255 East Avenue

Rochester, New York 14604
585.512.2000
250 South Avenue, Suite 100

Rochester, NY 14604
585.454.4230
Rochester Public Market Wintershed September 2011
Existing Conditions Report
Table of Contents
Section I. Executive Summary Page 1
Section II. Background & History Page 2
Section III. Site Page 2
Food Kiosk Outbuildings Page 3
Parking Page 3
Section IV. Past Wintershed Projects Completed Page 4
Section V. Current Building Operation Page 4
Section VI. Physical Description & Condition
Architectural: Roof Page 5
Architectural: Walls & Columns Page 7
Architectural: Fenestration Page 10
Architectural: Concrete Floor Slab Page 10

and Perimeter Concrete Walk
Structural Page 11
HVAC Page 12
Plumbing Page 12
Electrical Page 12
Appendix A Existing Building Drawings

Rochester Public Market Wintershed
Existing Conditions Report September 2011

Section I. Executive Summary
The Rochester Public Market Wintershed (Shed ‘B’), constructed in 1977-78, is currently filled to capacity
with vendors and is a popular destination for customers of the Market. The building is currently operating
and is structurally sound, but has deficiencies with regards to its size, circulation, code compliance, and
amenities.
Physically, repairs are needed on specific areas throughout the shed, including, but not limited to, the
concrete floor slab, concrete columns, overhead coiling doors, polycarbonate transom windows, and
aluminum storefront entrances. The radiant heating system is inadequate, and the vendor stalls are
lacking appropriate water service and are not tied into the sanitary sewer system. The center aisle,
currently at 8 feet wide, prohibits proper circulation during peak market times. In general, the building is
physically in good condition, but is in need of improvements.
Programmatically, there are issues that prohibit the facility from operating to its fullest potential. In
addition to the inadequately narrow center aisle, the individual vendor stalls, at 64 square feet each, are
deemed too small. With solid metal overhead doors, and discolored transom window panels, the building
lacks transparency, which would allow customers to clearly see into the shed from the exterior, as well as
provide views to the exterior from within. The entrances are not particularly prominent and are unable to
be clearly viewed from the major market entrances off of Union Street and Railroad Street. The four food
kiosks adjacent to the Wintershed do not meet current fire and plumbing codes.
Based on our physical needs and program assessments, the existing Wintershed and its adjacent food
kiosks should not operate in their current state without significant improvements, both physically and
programmatically, that would bring the buildings up to current code and contribute to satisfying the goals
of the City of Rochester to create expanded, modern enclosed facilities. We recommend that the existing
Wintershed (Shed ‘B’) be upgraded in a transformative yet cost-effective manner that addresses the
building’s greatest weaknesses while potentially utilizing much of the existing structure to achieve the
following goals:
- Widening the customer aisle

- Improving the location and visibility of the storefront entrances
- Creating transparency through the building with clear garage doors and other glazing systems
- Upgrade the heating system
- Provide sanitary system tie-ins and improve water distribution
- Meet plumbing, building, fire & health code requirements
- Adding public restrooms
- Make routine repairs to deficient building components identified in this report
- Rebuild the food kiosks integrated in an expanded Shed ‘B’ or adjacent to the shed.
It is our recommendation that these goals will be achieved by maintaining the structural framework of the
existing building, while reconfiguring the layout to provide ample circulation and vendor spaces, and
expanding the building footprint to incorporate the food kiosks, restrooms, vendor storage and cooler
spaces, and mechanical room. The massing of the rehabilitated shed would take cues from the existing
Sheds ‘A’ and ‘C’, with a new gabled roof. Entrances would be located on the gable ends with canopies,
signage, and transparent glazing so they are clearly viewed from major market entrances to the east and
west.
Page1


Section II. Background & History
The Rochester Public Market has operated on its current site since 1905. In the first decade of the 20th
Century, the City of Rochester’s population reached 200,000, and with it brought a substantial increase in
farm marketing. The entire food chain was accommodated by the Market, as a wholesale venue for both
farmers and intermediate vendors in a central location.
As the Twentieth Century progressed, the Rochester Public Market went through changes, both in policy
and physical renovations. Originally built for the wholesale trade, retail sales were introduced nearly a
decade later. This proved to keep the Market active, even as public markets in many cities closed,
unable to compete with population shifts to the suburbs and the rise of suburban stores. The Market went
through major renovations in 1931, including the addition of the central, curved shed.
By the 1960s, the Market and its surrounding neighborhood had been adversely impacted by the
continued population shift to the suburbs and the success of the ‘supermarket’. In response to the state
of the Market area, the federal Neighborhood Development Act of 1974 led to funds that contributed to
the construction of the current Wintershed in 1977-78.
During the past thirty years, the Wintershed has gone through several maintenance campaigns, but
issues exist with regards to its size and needed improvements. Despite its deficiencies, the Wintershed
remains filled to capacity with vendors and customers on major Market days.
In 2010, the Rochester Public Market was named “Favorite Large Farmer’s Market” in the Country by the
American Farmland Trust. With the current success and renewed interest in the Market, the Wintershed
has been the focus of the City to study its condition and operation, and identify potential opportunities for
improvements.
Section III. Site
The Public Market site has seen a number of improvements in recent years including a restoration of
Shed A, the entry gates at Union Street and Railroad Street, enhancements to the parking area on the
eastern end of the site, and a new surface parking lot across the street on the west side of Union Street.
Vehicular circulation through the market site is generally comprised of one-way drive aisles with adjacent
parking. Vehicles enter the market site from three different access points: the entry gate at Union Street,
the entry gate at Railroad Street, and a curb-cut on Pennsylvania Avenue in the northeast corner of the
site. Trinidad Street, which runs parallel to Pennsylvania Avenue along the south side of the storefront
building at the market, essentially functions as a one-way west bound through lane and parking lot aisle
rather than a true city street. The drive aisles along Shed A and the Wintershed run one-way eastbound,
and allow traffic entering the site from Union Street to flow east toward Railroad Street or the parking lot
at the eastern edge of the market site. The area within the center of the site (roughly triangular in shape
and defined by Shed A and the Wintershed) is primarily closed off to public vehicular access and is
reserved for outdoor vendor stalls and vendor parking. The public is allowed access to a through aisle
that runs eastbound between the Wintershed and large warehouse building owned by Trippi Foods,
located south of the Wintershed. This drive aisle has some parallel parking along it, but also provides
access to the south side of the Wintershed so that vendors can back their trucks up directly to their stalls,
which are accessed via overhead doors.
Food Kiosk Outbuildings
The Wintershed currently has four adjacent outbuildings that house individual prepared food
vendors: Zimmerman’s on the west side, Juan & Maria’s Empanada Stop, Cherry’s European,
and Scott’s II on the east side. These buildings are constructed of combustible materials, and are
currently not connected to the sanitary sewer. The east side buildings are grouped close to each
other which raises questions on required building separations. Each of these structures would
Page2


need to be upgraded to meet current building code standards, including plumbing and fire
protection. The buildings were not accessed as part of the Wintershed survey.
Parking
The market site is highly used, and on the weekends in summer hundreds descend on the site
within a small window of time. Providing adequate parking has been a long term goal, and in
recent years a number of improvements have been made to both on-site and off-site parking. As
noted on Map 1, currently there are approximately 420 parking spaces located on the market site.
The parking lot at the eastern edge of the site includes the majority of these with 229 parking
spaces located throughout the lot. There are 86 spaces along what was Trinidad Street in front of
the storefront buildings, and just south of these there is a row of 33 parking spaces, 30 of which
are designated as handicap parking for the market site. Incidentally, only nine handicap
designated spaces are required for parking lots between 401-500 spaces, therefore, this far
exceeds what is required. Approximately 42 spaces are located in a lot in the southwest corner
of the site along Union Street, and 30 spaces are located along the north wall of the Trippi Foods
building and near the Railroad Street gate. In addition, there is capacity for approximately 26
vendor vehicles along the south side of the Wintershed, and 10 on the north side. Sheds A and B
have a combined capacity for approximately 90 vendor vehicles along their perimeters.
Across Union Street from the market site, a large surface parking lot was recently constructed.
That lot contains 158 parking spaces, including eight handicap designated spaces, and is linked
to the market site via pedestrian crosswalks at Union Street, but also a new tram service that
shuttles market goers back and forth. There are plans to expand and enhance this service in the
near future, as the northern CSX rail bridge over Union Street has been acquired by the City, and
will be rehabbed to serve as a bridge to allow the tram service to shuttle between the market and
west parking lot uninterrupted by traffic on Union Street. The existing 158 space parking lot will
also be expanded westward all the way to Scio Street and will include approximately 180
additional parking spaces. The shuttle will help transfer people from this long stretch of parking
directly into the market site, then back again. The additional parking will help alleviate some of
the parking congestion in the area, and may allow for new opportunities on the market site where
parking currently exists. It is important to note that many also park on-street (Union Street
Railroad Street and other side streets), as well as in other privately owned parking lots which
charge for the convenience of parking (typically around two dollars).
Page3

Map1:Existingpublicparkingonsite
Section IV. Past Wintershed projects completed
Over the 3 decade life of the Wintershed, the City has identified the following repair projects:
1996 Clerestory windows replacement
1999 Electrical service upgrades
2006 Roofing repairs and new roof drains and piping
2008 New gas-fired radiant heating system
2010 New pendant light fixtures
Section V. Current building operation
The Wintershed is 290 feet long with only three access/egress points on the north elevation through
aluminum storefront doors at the east end, the center, and the west end of the building. The current
layout includes an 8-foot-long double-loaded central aisle with vendor stalls on the north and south sides.
Page4


The central aisle is the only means of circulation through the shed. It is very narrow and impedes
pedestrian circulation through the building, and bottlenecks frequently occur on busy market days.
The vendor stalls are 8-feet deep, which ideally should be deeper to maximize vendor operations. There
is a coiling overhead steel door at each bay for vendor access to load and unload their vehicles. The
shed is not connected to the City’s sanitary sewer, and the water and debris from the vendor sinks
currently empties onto the existing concrete floor slab and eventually into the storm sewer. On market
days, refuse accumulates in and around the shed. The building is currently functional, but is in need of
repairs as well as code, spatial, and circulation improvements.
Section VI. Physical Description & Condition
Architectural: Roof
The existing Wintershed contains a flat roof with an asphalt built-up roofing system and a
protective gravel layer. The roofing system is terminated at the perimeter edge with an aluminum
standard gravel stop coping (Figure 1).
The roofing system was replaced in recent years and appears to be in good condition. We have
been told by City staff that asbestos containing roofing has been previously identified in
hazardous material testing reports, but it was not abated. Rather, it was deliberately
encapsulated by the recently installed roofing system.
The structure of the roof is not pitched, and was initially designed to drain to cast-in-place
concrete scuppers on the east and west ends (Figure 2). Due to the roof’s extreme length (290
feet), the original system of drainage was problematic in that water would overflow the perimeter
gravel stops before draining through the scuppers. This is evidenced by water stains and
damage on the sides of the structural concrete columns and arched buttresses (Figure 3). As a
remedy, five (5) roof drains were installed along the roof’s mid-span during its recent replacement
to minimize the potential for water overflow (Figure 4).
The roof surface was not pitched to these roof drains with tapered insulation, so the issue of
standing water on the roof was not resolved, and water overflow of the gravel stops can still
occur. A result of installation of the roof drains was that PVC drain leaders were introduced
below the interior finished ceiling (Figure 5). The structural deck is a glue laminate wood deck
which serves as the exposed finished ceiling as well as the structural roof deck.
The structural integrity of portions of the wood roof deck may have been compromised by the
installation of the roof drains. Effort was made to remedy this by installing 2 x 12 supports
adjacent to several of the roof drain penetrations where they occur at mid-span of a structural bay
(Figure 5). Due to their high visibility, the exposed PVC roof drains and dimensional lumber
supports may be deemed an unsightly remedy.
Page5

Figure1:Builtuproofwithperimetergravelstop Figure2:Concreteroofscupperoneastend
Figure3:Waterstainsonfaceofarched Figure4:Roofdrainatmidspan
buttresssupport
The original heating system included gas fired heaters placed on thickened slabs-on-grade. The
heaters were removed and replaced with a ceiling-hung gas-fired radiant heating approximately
three years ago. This system is vented through the roof with four (4) b-vents (Figure 6). The
integrity of portions of the roof deck may have been compromised by the random placement of
these vent penetrations.
Overall, the roofing system of the Wintershed is working well and is quite safe. Limited repair
work is required on the exterior of the shed under the eaves where overflow water from the roof
has damaged the glue laminate deck. A future roofing system maintenance plan should include
proper drainage to the roof drains or a gutter system, and be properly flashed to shed water away
from the building.
Page6

Figure 5: Underside of structural wood deck Figure6:Roofexhaustfrom

with roof drain penetration and dimensional heatingsystemwithBvent
lumbersupports
Figure7:Viewofnorthfaçadeshowingconcrete Figure8:ClearspaninteriorofWintershed.
endwallwithconcretecolumnsandarched
buttressbeams
Architectural: Walls & Columns
The existing Wintershed includes two (2) cast-in-place reinforced concrete endwalls, and cast-in-
place reinforced concrete columns and arched buttress beams in between (Figure 7). The
concrete columns and beams are spaced at 18 feet on center (east to west) and support the
structural wood deck. The deck is supported on the east and west ends on a steel angle
anchored to the inside face of the endwalls. The columns and beams provide a clear-span of 24
feet wide on the interior of the shed along its entire length (Figure 8).
The concrete endwalls show the impressions of the original formwork, which is vertical
dimensional board lumber on the exterior surfaces, and plywood sheets on the interior surfaces.
The exterior also exhibits regularly-spaced formwork tie holes (Figure 9). The concrete endwalls
are in good condition. However, the exterior surfaces show evidence of weathering with
intermittently exposed aggregate, which is consistently exposed along the vertical lengths of the
corners (Figure 10). The interior surfaces of both endwalls have several visible vertical cracks
(Figure 11).
The concrete columns are in good condition with two consistently notable exceptions: 1.) The
bases of most columns exhibit severe cracking / spalling at the bottom 18 inches (Figure 12).
Page7


This is due to salt-saturated snow and ice accumulation during the winter months. Several
column bases show exposed steel reinforcing in addition to spalling (Figure 13). And, 2.) At
nearly every column, there are horizontal hairline cracks at approximately 24 inches on center
vertically (Figure 14). At several column capitals, rusted anchors are visible between the
columns and arched buttress (Figure 15). Intermittent deterioration is visible at the top of several
columns (Figure 16).
Overall the Wintershed concrete walls and columns are in good condition. However, repairs are
needed on nearly all column bases and at locations exhibiting intermittent spalling.
Figure 9: Visible impressions from dimensional

lumberformworkandtieholesatconcreteendwall
Figure10:Exposedaggregateatverticaledgeof
concreteendwall
Figure11:Interiorviewofconcreteendwallwith
verticalcrack
Page8

Figure12:Exampleoftypicalspallingat Figure13:Severedamagetobase
baseofconcretecolumn ofconcretecolumnwithexposed
steelreinforcing
Figure14:Typicalhorizontalhairlinecrackingat Figure15:Exposedsteelanchorattopofconcrete
concretecolumn column
Figure16:Spalledareaattopof Figure17:Aluminumbasedamagedadjacenttoeast
concretecolumn entrancedoorsonnorthelevation
Page9

Architectural: Fenestration
The Wintershed fenestration consists of aluminum and glass storefront entrances, coiling
overhead steel doors at each service bay, and polycarbonate clerestory windows in aluminum
framing.
The aluminum and glass storefront entrances are located at three points along the north façade:
The far east end, the center, and the far west end. All three pairs of the aluminum and glass
entrance doors appear to be recently installed, although our conversations with the City staff
confirmed a window replacement project in 1996, which may have included the storefront
framing. The storefront framing and entrance doors appear in fair to good condition and
operating well, and the glazing is intact, except that the aluminum framing base to the right (west)
of the east entrance doors is damaged (Figure 17). There are numerous scratches and gouges
intermittently located throughout the framing.
There are twenty-nine (29) pairs of galvanized coiling overhead doors. The doors appear to be
original and have been painted a medium bronze to match the aluminum breakmetal above and
the storefront framing. Peeling paint is exhibited on nearly all coiling doors and frames (Figure
18). We were unable to observe the operation of the doors to assess their working condition.
Polycarbonate glazing panels run the length of the north and south elevations above the
overhead doors. These panels have yellowed and discolored to the extent that it is difficult to see
through them (Figure 19). The aluminum framing appears to be in fair condition, with some
panels on the south side exhibiting white staining (Figure 19). We do not have confirmation if the
polycarbonate panels were replaced during the 1996 window replacement project.
Figure18:Paintpeelingand
wearonoverheadcoiling Figure19:Polycarbonateclerestoryglazingexhibiting
door yellowing/discolorationandwhitestainingonthe
framing
Architectural: Concrete Floor Slab and Perimeter Concrete Walk
The floor of the Wintershed is a 6” thick cast-in-place concrete slab-on-grade. The slab was
constructed in two separate pours with an expansion joint in the center. The slab exhibits
intermittent hairline cracking throughout, and the expansion joint is significantly spalled (Figure
20). The perimeter walk is constructed of cast-in-place concrete, and exhibits intermittent hairline
cracking, particularly at column locations. The north walk is flush with the asphalt drive, while the
south walk has approximately a four-inch step. The concrete walk is worn and chipped at its
edge along the entire length of the south side. In some areas, several inches of concrete is
Page10


missing (Figure 21). Overall the concrete floor slab and walk are in fair to good condition, and
general maintenance repairs are needed.
Figure21:Wornandchippedconcreteedgeofwalkonsouthside
ofshed
Figure20:Spalledconcreteatexpansion
jointinslab,interiorofshedatcenter
entrance
Structural
Overall, the Wintershed is in good condition. As identified in other areas, several items do need to
be addressed, including:
x The slab-on-grade has some cracking throughout and minor spalling at the center
expansion joint. We recommend that this spalling be repaired since it is a tripping
hazard. The cracks should be routed and sealed with a polyurethane sealant.
x Several columns have cracking and have spalled at the column base, with reinforcement
exposed at several locations. This is probably the result of salt-laden snow being piled
up against these columns. The deterioration levels are not significant enough to be a
structural concern at the present time but should be repaired to extend the useful life of
this structure. We also recommend once repaired, a waterproofing membrane be placed
at the base of these columns.
x Joints between columns and concrete buttresses need to be cleaned and re-sealed due
to minor levels of deterioration.
In regards to the cast-in-place concrete end walls, the west end wall is in good condition, with
some minor map cracking. The east end wall has map cracking and some efflorescence at the
top of the wall but it does not appear that there are active leaks at the present time. The location
of this efflorescence seems to coincide with a roof scupper that is no longer utilized.
There were no visible signs of active leaking in the roof. Roof drain penetrations were placed
recently and supplemental supports consisting of 2x stringers added. Some of these stringers
appear slightly warped and twisted but this may be due to the long span and may have been the
condition at installation. No supplemental support framing was added to the roof at the hot flu
penetrations.
Page11


HVAC
The mechanical system of the Wintershed is a gas-fired radiant heating system that is anchored
to the interior ceiling and vented through the roof with type b-vents. The system was installed in
2008. The system is functioning but is not ideal for the current shed use because it provides
direct heat to the users and the food stored in the shed. The shed has a 2½” incoming gas
service that is distributed in the ceiling space to the radiant heater and is in good condition with
minimal corrosion.
It is anticipated that a new heating system would be included in any rehabilitation plans for the
shed. The new heating system for the building should be an indirect type heater that will not
provide direct heat on the users of the shed. A forced air unit heater system or a forced air
furnace system with ductwork would be ideal for this application.
Plumbing
The Wintershed currently has 1½” domestic water piped to specific vendor areas in the ceiling
space. There currently is no sanitary sewer and the sinks are piped to empty out onto the
concrete floor slab and eventually into the City’s storm sewer system. This is not in compliance
with code. There are no floor drains in the shed to direct any runoff into the sewer system. If the
building is to be expanded to the south, three fire hydrants would have to be relocated because of
their close proximity to the building (approximately three feet). There is no fire sprinkler system in
the building.
Electrical
The electrical system of the Wintershed consists of a 120/208 volt 800 amp service with a main
distribution panel and 2 sub panels, ceiling-hung pendant fluorescent light fixtures, and column-
mounted electrical outlets. The building contains minimal emergency lighting and would need to
be upgraded to meet code. According to the City of Rochester, electrical service improvements
were made in 1999 and the light fixtures were replaced in 2010.
Page12

Rochester Public Market

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rochester Public Market

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONCEPTUAL RENDERING

INTERIOR OF RENOVATED SHED B ROCHESTER PUBLIC MARKET

1. Create an active market district throughout the week and year

Contents of this Report

This report consists of the following documents:

- Master Plan - Site Plan Drawing

Master Plan Program and Phasing

Phase IA Construct new open Shed ‘D’ $ 2,310,000

Master Plan Summary

The following components of the Program are as follows:

Phase IA – Construct new open Shed ‘D’

Phase IB – Winterize existing Shed ‘C’

Phase II – The Market House and Market Plaza

Phase III – New Storefront Building (Public-Private Partnership)

4-PHASE MASTER PLAN SCENARIO

SHED B RENOVATION ONLY SCENARIO

Notes: 1) Cost Projections include approximate site improvement costs.

118 William Street 207.321.2016

Rochester Public Market

Prepared for the City of Rochester

1. Summary of Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 3

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

3. Market description .................................................................................................................. 5

4. Best practices ........................................................................................................................ 19

5. Customer Demand Analysis ................................................................................................. 25

6. Supply Analysis .................................................................................................................... 37

7. SWOT Analysis .................................................................................................................... 40

8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 42

9. Appendix A. Marketview Heights study area ...................................................................... 43

10. Appendix B. City Market, Kansas City ............................................................................... 44

Market Analysis Page 1

12. Appendix D. Sales Analysis ................................................................................................ 49

Market Analysis Page 2

Market Analysis Page 3

MVI employed a range of research methodologies for this study, including:

• “Rochester Public Market Plan” (Nutter Associates, 1996)

Market Analysis Page 4

Location and facilities

Market Analysis Page 5

1 Marketview Heights FIS Situational Analysis, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/fis/

Market Analysis Page 6

The Rochester Public Market is

Vendors may rent more than one

1. NYS farmers (leaseholders first then daily farmers)

Market Analysis Page 7

The Market has four outdoor kiosks with

Market Analysis Page 8

3 Marketview Heights FIS Situational Analysis, http://www.cityofrochester.gov/fis/

Market Analysis Page 9

Market Analysis Page 10

If the redeveloped Wintermarket is open more frequently, converting these regular

Market Analysis Page 11

Market Analysis Page 12

Market Analysis Page 13

Market Analysis Page 14

Market Analysis Page 15

Market Analysis Page 16

x Market Supervisor – full-time

Market Analysis Page 17

Market Analysis Page 18

Key factors for success

Market Analysis Page 19

Market Analysis Page 20