State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Thomas Joseph McManus, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1998).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C3-99-71

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Thomas Joseph McManus,

Appellant.

 Filed June 22, 1999

 Affirmed

Klaphake, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. K1-95-2632

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Darrell C. Hill, Assistant County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Ste. 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)

Lawrence W. Pry, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Ave. S.E., Ste. 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414-3230 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Willis, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 KLAPHAKE, Judge

Appellant Thomas Joseph McManus pleaded guilty to theft of a motor vehicle in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subds. 2(5), 3(2) (1994). At sentencing, appellant was ordered to pay $300 restitution. He appeals from the order of restitution, challenging its factual basis.

Because the record contains competent evidence to support the nature and extent of the victim's loss, we affirm.

 D E C I S I O N

A sentencing court has broad discretion in ordering reasonable restitution. State v. Belfry, 416 N.W.2d 811, 813 (Minn. App. 1987). The restitution order, however, must have a factual basis in the record. State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn. 1984). The court may obtain the information from the victim in affidavit form or by "other competent evidence." Minn. Stat. § 611 A. 04, subd. 1 (1998). The record must show, with reasonable specificity, the nature and amount of the losses. State v. Keehn, 554 N.W.2d 405, 407 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1996).

Appellant challenges the factual basis for the restitution order, claiming that the victim neither sought restitution nor submitted an affidavit documenting the nature and extent of the loss. Appellant further claims that the record lacks any other evidence of the victim's loss.

However, the record contains a court-ordered presentence investigation report (PSI). The non-confidential section of the PSI states that the victim, a Roseville leasing company, incurred costs of approximately $1,050 to retrieve the vehicle from Wisconsin, where it was located after the theft. The confidential section of the PSI states that an affidavit to request restitution was sent to the victim and that the victim told the probation officer that he had spent $300 to retrieve the vehicle from Wisconsin. The confidential section of the PSI also provided the victim's address, should restitution be ordered.

At sentencing, the district court questioned appellant about the claimed loss. Appellant stated that he believed the claim represented the victim's cost of hiring someone to drive the vehicle from Wisconsin to Minnesota. The district court noted that the victim had some difficulty locating supporting documents because three years had passed since the 1995 theft.

We conclude the record provided the factual basis for both the amount and nature of the victim's loss. Prior to sentencing, the PSI placed appellant on notice that restitution was at issue. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay $300 restitution.

The restitution order is affirmed.

 Affirmed.