New Search
I <br /> CLAR,~C Debbie D <br /> w~__ _ _ _ ~ <br /> From: CARLSON Becky A <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:23 AM <br /> CLARK Debbie D <br /> Cc: PETERSON Tish A; SMITH Tammy D <br /> Subject: RE: Metro waterways ad ` <br /> Yep, you're right Debbie--PeopleSoft Billing, in its limited understanding of governmental accounting, p ohibits billing inv~ides <br /> being coded to expenditure accounts (see Finn's note, below). So, until we get our new financial sys a years, y u ~ave <br /> the choices of using the "clearing account" that Finn refers to, below (i.e., prepare the billing coded 4 991 d then al~o <br /> prepare an accompanying JE supported by the billing to move the money to where you really want it.... an "off sy~t~m" <br /> billing. I'm really not a fan of the latter, because it means the billing is "off the books" and doesn't show up on any of the ~ aging <br /> reports or the monitoring tools used to ensure the city receives all payments for which it isdue--and if y u left, who woul khow to <br /> track that payment to make sure we received it?. But I'll leave that choice in your hands, because you ave to deal with hid on a <br /> day-in/day-out basis. -bc <br /> Yup, tis a true system limitation, so it become a 2-step process. Use the City's generic revenue clearin account to bill IV~W~VIC <br /> (47991 -Billing Clearing Account) and then prepare a JE once we're paid to net the expense. <br /> It has always been a limitation with the billing side of PS. We may have speed it, but by the time we go to actually imple{n~nting <br /> PS billing (FY 2001) after you had moved south to analysis, we found that it wasn't an option and we re Ily didn't want to ~ <br /> customize the system for exceptions to our primary business practice. Of course, we will revisit that'as n option when w~ <br /> migrate to Oracle fusion in 2010\11. <br /> Finn <br /> _....M.. _ . <br /> F m: CLARK Debbie D <br /> (t: Thursday, June O1, 2006 8:45 AM <br /> 1 u: CARLSON Becky A; JONES Eric R , <br /> Cc: PETERSON Tish A; SMITH Tammy D <br /> Subject: RE: Metro waterways ad <br /> Sounds goon, but 1 will. not be able to use :l'eoplesoft to i.nvaice LCtJG, as it requires a :revenue only <br /> account. nat expexxse. We will have to prepare an "in house" invozce and lave the the k mailed to us to <br /> process a Turnover to the correct account. <br /> ~Deblaie <br /> From: CARLSON Becky A <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:33 AM <br /> To: CLARK Debbie D; JONES Eric R <br /> Cc: PETERSON Tish A; SMITH Tammy D <br /> Subject: RE: Metro waterways ad ~ <br /> Debbie, this transaction meets the definition of a "true reimbursement," i.e.. for convenience sake or cost vings, the city inGti~lly <br /> incur costs attributable to another agency, and when the other agency repays us, it reduces (a direct credi to the expenditure <br /> unt) the original expenditure so that the net balance left in the expenditure account is really just the cit 's attributable shjar~. <br /> ,Eric's proposal that the reimbursement payment go directly into 535-8920-61731 is the correct treatme t. We would onl ~irant <br /> to record revenue (4xxxx) if we had earned that LCOG payment by adding some signiticant value to what t ey received--in t~ii~ <br /> <br /> case, there was no value-add by Eugene paying for the ad and then getting reimbursed. ' <br /> 6/20/2006 <br /> <br />