New Search
CLARK Debbie D (~l`~ - ~ L ~ <br /> From: CARLSON Becky A ~ ~ <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:23 AM <br /> CLARK Debbie D _dU <br /> Cc: PETERSON Tish A; SMITH Tammy D ~ q 2 ~ <br /> Subject. RE: Metro waterways ad j t <br /> Yep, you're right Debbie--PeopleSoft Billing, in its limited understanding of governmental accounting, prohibits billing invoices <br /> being coded to expenditure accounts (see Finn's note, below). So, until we get our new financial system in five years, you have <br /> the choices of using the "clearing account" that Finn refers to, below (i.e., prepare the billing coded to 47991 and then also <br /> prepare an accompanying JE supported by the billing to move the money to where you really want it:...) OR do an "off system" <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 A/R aging <br /> reports or the monitoring tools used to ensure the city receives all payments for which it isdue--and if you left, who would know to <br /> track that payment to make sure we received it?. But I'll leave that choice in your hands, because you have to deal with this 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 clearing account to bill MWMC <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 got to actually implementing <br /> PS billing (FY 2001) after you had moved south to analysis, wa found that it wasn't an option and we really didn't want to <br /> customize the system for exceptions to our primary business practice. Of course, we will. revisit that as an option when we <br /> migrate to Oracle fusion in 2010\11. <br /> Finn <br /> From: CLARK Debbie D <br /> Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:45 AM <br /> 1,.. CARLSON Becky A;-JONES Eric R _ <br /> Cc: PETERSON Tish A; SMITH Tammy D <br /> Subject: RE: Metro waterways ad <br /> aund.s ~c~ad, but I ~vi1l naf be able to use I'eaplesaft to i.nvaice LC®~, as it rega.:~:res a revena.e anl~ <br /> account nat expense. Vve will have to prepare an "gin hawse'" invaice and hive the ~heclc rn.ailed to us to <br /> pracess a 'I"urnaver to the carrect accaunt. <br /> wI1~>1~~ie <br /> From: CARLSON Becky A <br /> Sent: Thursday, June O1, 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 savings, the city initially <br /> incur costs attributable to another agency, and when the other agency repays us, it reduces (a direct credit to the expenditure <br /> a~ 'aunt) the original expenditure so that the net balance left in the expenditure account is really just the city's attributable share. <br /> ~,_ric's proposal that the reimbursement payment go directly into 535-8920-61731 is the correct treatment. We would only want <br /> <br /> to record revenue (4xxxx) if we had earned that LCOG payment by adding some signiticant value to what they received--in this <br /> <br /> case, there was no value-add by Eugene paying for the ad and then getting reimbursed. <br /> 6/8/2006 <br /> <br />