1. Basis of Presentation, Accounting Policies and Recent Accounting Pronouncements

3 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2014

Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]

Basis of Presentation and Recent Accounting Policies and Pronouncements

Nature of Operations

Alanco Technologies, Inc. (Stock Symbol: ALAN) was incorporated in 1969 under the laws of the State of Arizona. Unless otherwise noted, the “Company” or “Alanco” refers to Alanco Technologies, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, the Company formed Alanco Energy Services, Inc. (“AES”), for the purpose of obtaining property to establish a water disposal facility near Grand Junction, CO to receive produced water generated as a byproduct from oil and natural gas production in Western Colorado. The new facility started to receive produced water in August 2012.

Background information on the creation of Alanco Energy Services, Inc.

During fiscal 2012,Alanco Energy Services, Inc. (“AES”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, executed an agreement with TC Operating, LLC (“TCO”) of Grand Junction, CO to transfer a land lease for approximately 24 acres near Grand Junction, CO (“Deer Creek site”) and all related assets to AES with the intent for AES to construct facilities for the treatment and disposal of large quantities of produced water generated by oil and natural gas producers in Western Colorado. The site was chosen due to its unique ability to meet stringent government requirements for disposal of the high saline water produced as a by-product of oil and gas production, and termed “produced water”. The agreement included the transfer of all related tangible and intangible assets as well as Federal, State and County permits (issued or in process) required to construct and operate the facilities. Subsequent to the TCO agreement, AES renegotiated an amended lease that became effective on May 1, 2012 and include a minimum monthly lease payment of $100 per acre ($2,400 per month) during the initial ten year term of the lease, plus approximately $.25 per barrel of produced water received at the site.

The design and construction of the Deer Creek water disposal facility required certain changes to the Goodwin Solid Waste facility (“Goodwin”) resulting in extra costs to the landlord, who also owned Goodwin. As incentive for the landlord to approve the facility design, AES agreed to limit landlord construction improvement costs related to the leased land to $200,000. Included in the $200,000 limited amount was $100,000 of landlord improvement costs to be paid by AES and reimbursed through a 50% credit against the $.25 per barrel royalty payments due landlord discussed above. AES recorded the $100,000 payment as prepaid royalties. The remaining prepaid balances at September 30, 2014 and June 30, 2014 were $51,300 and $58,700, respectively.

TCO can also earn additional purchase price payments based upon a percentage of the net cumulative EBITDA (net of all related AES capital investments) over a period of approximately 10 years (contingent deferred payment), approximately the initial term of the lease. Under certain circumstances, the acreage covered by the lease may be expanded by up to 50 acres to allow for additional expansion at the site. See Note H - Contingent Payments for additional discussion of the contingent deferred payment.

During April 2012, AES also entered into a definitive agreement with Deer Creek Disposal, LLC ("DCD") whereby AES acquired a 160 acre site near Grand Junction, CO, for additional expansion to the proposed watertreatment and disposal facility. As consideration for the land purchase, AES paid $500,000 at the April 13, 2012 closing and assumed a non-interest bearing, secured, $200,000 note due November 15, 2012, which was repaid upon maturity. AES has also agreed to potential additional quarterly earn-out payments to DCD up to a maximum total of $800,000, generally determined as 10% of quarterly revenues in excess of operating expenses up to $200,000 per quarter (contingent land payment). See Note H - Contingent Payments for additional discussion ofthe contingent land payment. The land, known as Indian Mesa, is currently undeveloped as the Company is in the permitting process.

Related to the treatment and disposal facilities, in fiscal year 2012 AES entered into a management agreement with TCO to manage the project for a monthly management fee of $10,000 initially and $20,000 after final permits for the Deer Creek operation were obtained in May 2012. The management agreement expired in January 2013 and is continuing on a month to month basis. During the three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company paid TCO $60,000 under the management agreement. TCO also earned an additional variable fee of approximately $4,000 for September 2014 revenues which was paid in October 2014.

Basis of Presentation

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements presented herein have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q. Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted. In our opinion, the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of such condensed consolidated financial statements. Such necessary adjustments consist of normal recurring items and the elimination of all significant intercompany balances and transactions.

These interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s June 30, 2014 Annual Report filed on Form 10-K. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities – The estimated fair values for assets and liabilities are determined at discrete points in time based on relevant information. The Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) prioritizes inputs used in measuring fair value into a hierarchy of three levels: Level 1 – unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities traded in active markets, Level 2 – observable inputs other than quoted pricesincluded within Level 1 such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices in markets that are notactive or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the asset or liability; and Level 3 – unobservable inputs in which little or no market activity exists that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions that market participants would use in pricing. These estimates involve uncertainties and cannot be determined with precision. The Company’s policy is to recognize transfers into and out of Level 1, 2 and 3 categories as of the date of the event or change in circumstances occurs. The carrying amounts of receivables, prepaid expenses, accounts payable, and accrued liabilitiesapproximate fair value given their short-term nature or their effective interest rates, which represent Level 3 input levels.

The following are the classes of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis at September 30, 2014, using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1); significant other observable inputs (Level 2); and significant unobservable inputs (Level 3):

		Level 1:
		Quoted Prices		Level 2:
		in active		Significant		Level 3:		Total
		Markets		Other		Significant		at
		for Identical		Observable		Unobservable		September 30,
		Assets		Inputs		Inputs		2014
Marketable Securities	$	230,000	$	-	$	-	$	230,000
Asset Retirement Obligation		-		-		423,700		423,700
Contigent Land Payment		-		-		648,400		648,400
Contingent Purchase Price		-		-		531,900		531,900
	$	230,000	$	-	$	1,604,000	$	1,834,000

Fair Value of Marketable Securities– The estimated fair values of Marketable Securities are determined at discrete points in time based on relevant market information. The Marketable Securities are comprised entirely of ORBCOMM Inc. (“ORBCOMM”) common shares (NASDAQ: ORBC) registered under a currently effective ORBCOMM Form S-3 registration statement. The fair value measurement at September 30, 2014 is based on unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets in active markets and thus represents a Level 1 fair value measurement. The remaining shares will be revalued at the end of each reporting period with per share market value fluctuations reported as Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the period.

Fair Value of Asset Retirement Obligation – The Deer Creek asset retirement obligation is the estimated cost to close the Deer Creek facility under terms of the lease, meeting environmental and State of Colorado regulatory requirements. The estimate is determined at discrete points in time based upon significant unobservable inputs in which little or no market activity exists that is significant to the fair value of the liability, therefore requiring the Company to develop its own assumptions. Management’s estimate of the asset retirement obligation is based upon a cost estimate developed by a consultant knowledgeable of government closure requirements and costs incurred at similar water disposal facility operations. The process used was to identify each activity in the closure process, obtaining vendor estimated costs, in current dollars, to perform the closure activity and accumulating the various vendor estimates to determine the asset retirement obligation. A present value discount has not been taken as the estimated closure costs, excluding regulatory changes and inflation adjustments, are anticipated to remain fairly consistent over the operational life of the facility. The lack of an active market to validate the estimated asset retirement obligation results in the fair value of the asset retirement obligation to be a Level 3 fair value measurement. ASC Topic 410-20: Asset Retirement Obligations requires the Company to review the asset retirement obligation on a recurring basis and record changes in the period incurred.

Fair Value of Contingent Payments – The contingent land payment and contingent purchase price liabilities are also determined at discrete points in time based upon unobservable inputs in which little or no market activity exists that is significant to the fair value of the liability, therefore requiring the Company to develop its own assumptions. In calculating the estimate of fair value for both of the contingent payments, management completed an estimate of the present value of each identified contingent liability based upon projected income, cash flows and capital expenditures for the Deer Creek facility developed under plans currently approved by the Company’s board of directors. Different assumptions relative to the expansion or alternative uses of the Deer Creek and Indian Mesa facilities could result in significantly different valuations. The projected payments have been discounted at a rate of 3% per annum to determine net present value. The lack of an active market tovalidate the estimated contingent land and purchase price liabilities results in the fair value of the contingent land and purchase price liabilities to be a Level 3 fair value measurement. ASC Topic 820: Fair Value Measurement requires the Company to review the contingent land and purchase price liabilities on a recurring basis and record changes in the period incurred.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued guidance regarding revenue from contracts with customers. The guidance outlines a single comprehensive model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes the most current revenue recognition guidance. The guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 including interim periods within that reporting period and early adoption is not permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact on its financial position and results of operations.

There have been no other recent accounting pronouncements or changes in accounting pronouncements during the threemonths ended September 30, 2014, that are of significance, or potential significance, to us.