California high-speed rail consultants billed taxpayers for late-night rides

Well after dark one night last September, a highly paid consultant for the California High-Speed Rail Authority expensed a Lyft ride that pulled up outside the agency CEO’s home in Folsom, California.

Just before midnight, another highly paid consultant expensed a Lyft ride from the same house back to his Sacramento hotel.

The first was Denver attorney Brent Butzin, who CBS California has independently confirmed is the legal-services consultant referenced in the High-Speed Rail inspector general’s recent investigation. The second was Thierry Prate, a managing director at KPMG, the financial adviser examined in the same report.

Both submitted the rides as expenses associated with California’s multibillion-dollar high-speed rail project.

And it wasn’t the only late-night ride from the High-Speed Rail CEO’s home.

Why were taxpayers billed for late-night rides from the CEO’s home?

After California’s independent High-Speed Rail inspector general found widespread failures in consultant travel oversight, whistleblowers provided CBS California Investigates with some of the underlying expense records.

We reviewed nearly 6,000 pages of invoices and expense claims that KPMG and the law firm Nossaman submitted to the authority for work from September 2024 through January 2026.

Among the receipts from two consultants, Prate and Butzin, we found a dozen rides to or from the small residential street in Folsom where High-Speed Rail CEO Ian Choudri owns a home. 

Another dozen rides went to or from nearby Folsom restaurants and bars. 

Many rides involved late-night or early-morning pickups, including two after 1 a.m. 

The receipts don’t establish who attended the gatherings, what business took place, or whether Choudri was present. His wife also works for KPMG. 

But the receipts reveal previously undisclosed connections between consultants’ travel expenses and the CEO’s private residence.

And they raise questions about who authorized those rides.

What state business justified trips to and from the CEO’s private residence and nearby restaurants, sometimes after midnight?

And what influence do these highly paid consultants have over the decisions driving the project’s costs and schedule?

The questions come as California’s high-speed rail project continues to spend billions, nearly two decades after voters approved a bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The state has spent more than $15 billion, but still hasn’t laid a mile of high-speed rail track. It recently lost $4 billion in federal funding after missing key deadlines, and its independent watchdog warns it could run out of money by the end of 2027.

Meanwhile, the authority said it is paying just four consulting contractors more than a quarter of a billion dollars over two fiscal years.

Sources inside the High-Speed Rail Authority say the inspector general’s findings point to something much bigger than questionable travel expenses.

Who holds influence over this multibillion-dollar public project? Who makes the decisions? And who’s accountable when those decisions cost taxpayers money?

CEO declines to answer questions about late-night rides

CBS California published its investigation hours before Friday’s special board meeting to discuss the Inspector General’s investigation. After the meeting, investigative correspondent Julie Watts asked High-Speed Rail CEO Ian Choudri about the late-night rides from his home. 

Choudri walked away without answering. The authority’s head of communications told CBS California that Choudri would not answer questions and directed reporters to email questions to his office. 

CBS California had previously submitted detailed written questions to his office asking about the expense records. The authority provided a general response outlining changes to travel oversight but did not directly answer questions about the rides.

In an email, the High-Speed Rail Authority said it is tightening travel oversight, updating reimbursement rules and requiring new training for consultants and contract managers before approving additional travel expenses.

“Only travel that is pre-approved, within contract scope and consistent with state regulations will be eligible for reimbursement,” the Authority said.

In a response to CBS California, KPMG said it is reviewing the travel expenses and will reimburse the Authority as appropriate.

“KPMG takes seriously its obligations regarding the accurate submission of expenses and KPMG professionals are expected to be responsible stewards of client and firm resources,  said Russ Grote, Managing Director of Corporate Affairs. 

CBS California also sent detailed questions to High-Speed Rail CEO Ian Choudri, Denver attorney Brent Butzin and KPMG managing director Thierry Prate.

None of the three responded to requests for comment.

Although board members had reviewed the investigation, none publicly pressed Choudri about the late-night rides or the IG’s report during the meeting. 

When Watts asked the board chair why he hadn’t questioned Choudri about the findings, he did not directly answer. But when asked whether the CEO should speak with California reporters representing taxpayers, the chair said, “Yes,” adding, “I believe in communication.”

The CEO wouldn’t answer our questions. The board didn’t ask them.

The receipts reveal why those questions matter, and one internal email connects a late-night ride directly to work with Choudri.  

‘Related to work with Ian’

When the High-Speed Rail Authority questioned KPMG, the firm described one of Prate’s rides to the CEO’s residence as “related to work with Ian.”

On that evening, Prate’s Lyft arrived at the Folsom home shortly after 7:30 p.m. His next documented ride departed the same address after 1 a.m.

A late-night business meeting isn’t necessarily inappropriate. Neither is visiting an executive’s home.

But the records don’t explain what specific work required repeated rides to the CEO’s residence, who was there or how the authority determined the transportation was an appropriate business expense.

Those details matter because California’s travel rules require more than a receipt. They require a legitimate business purpose.

And the inspector general found that the High-Speed Rail Authority repeatedly failed to document whether consultant travel met that standard.

A pizza delivery. Another late-night ride.

Prate’s receipts also document a food delivery to the same residence.

One January evening, shortly after 9:30 p.m., an Uber Eats driver delivered a $94.39 order from a Folsom pizza restaurant to Choudri’s home, charged to Prate’s KPMG corporate card

The High-Speed Rail Authority disputed the food delivery, and records show the consultant accepted the dispute. Taxpayers ultimately didn’t pay for the pizza. They did pay for Prate’s ride home.

The receipts also don’t identify who ate the food or who was at the house. But they reinforce the central question about the travel expenses.

What state business justifies repeatedly charging the project for transportation to and from the CEO’s private home?

The paperwork says Sacramento. The receipts show Folsom.

The CEO’s home wasn’t the only Folsom destination.

Other travel records show consultants frequently taking rides between their Sacramento hotels and restaurants and bars near the CEO’s home, roughly 30 minutes away. 

All of the destinations were in the same shopping center as the Land Ocean Steak House that the CEO frequents, according to multiple sources.

Some rides back to Sacramento began after midnight.

Butzin’s expense paperwork reveals another apparent discrepancy.

Five travel forms described the purpose of his trips as “Meetings at CHSRA in Sacramento.” But attached receipts document travel to restaurants and other locations in Folsom.

The forms didn’t identify those destinations. Their business-entertainment sections were blank.

None of that establishes that the restaurant visits were personal, or that every expense required a separate entertainment disclosure.

But the paperwork doesn’t explain why the consultants repeatedly traveled to Folsom while billing expenses associated with meetings in Sacramento.

The discrepancies also raise questions about what the High-Speed Rail Authority reviewed before approving the payment.

If the travel forms didn’t identify where the consultants actually went, how did the state determine whether the expenses were legitimate?

The Washington connection

The receipts reveal another late-night destination, this time across the country.

In May 2025, Prate and Butzin both billed travel to Washington, D.C., during the High Speed Rail 2025 conference, where Choudri was scheduled to speak on May 14, according to the conference agenda. 

Just before 1 a.m. that morning, Prate expensed the first of two Lyft rides totaling roughly $60 from Shelly’s Back Room, a Washington cigar lounge, to the Mayflower Hotel and back to the cigar lounge just before 1:30 a.m.

The records don’t indicate who else was there. 

Butzin’s records raise a different question.

He billed more than $1300 for a May 13-16 trip to “Attend USHSR Annual Conference and Meetings with CHSRA/Industry Suppliers.” The records include no receipts.

“Learning the hard way”

The inspector general’s report revealed how requests from the CEO’s office influenced travel approvals.

When a contract manager reminded a Denver-based legal consultant that he needed to explain his trips and obtain advance written approval, the consultant pushed back.

We now know the consultant was Butzin.

According to the email excerpt in the inspector general’s report, Butzin argued that justifying travel wasn’t his responsibility when the CEO requested his presence.

Then came a perceived warning.

Butzin added that questioning the CEO’s direction was inappropriate, “as other consultants in other Authority offices are learning the hard way.”

The contract manager told investigators she was directed, primarily by the acting chief counsel, to approve travel expenses because the CEO had requested the trips.

The inspector general concluded that the CEO didn’t have authority to override the state contract’s travel requirements.

The report documents pressure surrounding travel approvals. It doesn’t establish that anyone was fired or explicitly threatened with termination.

But sources inside the High-Speed Rail Authority say the concerns extend beyond consultant travel.

They describe a workplace where some consultants are perceived as having unusual influence because of their relationships with leadership, raising questions about whether employees feel empowered to challenge spending and other decisions.

The watchdog’s findings provide documented examples of the tension between executive requests and the employees responsible for enforcing contract rules.

Expensive travel. Little advance scrutiny.

The inspector general’s findings are especially significant when compared with Butzin’s travel records. 

The High-Speed Rail Authority also paid the Denver-based consultant approximately $86,500 in hourly travel pay, totaling over a quarter of a million dollars when combined with reimbursed expenses.  

Separate receipts CBS California obtained document expensive flights and hotel stays, including one airfare of nearly $937 for a flight from Denver to Sacramento and one hotel night costing $587.

The expense records include airline tickets purchased shortly before departure. The inspector general found that Butzin frequently booked flights on the day of travel, creating a risk of higher costs.

Last-minute flights aren’t necessarily wasteful. Executives sometimes schedule meetings with little notice, requiring consultants to travel on short notice.

But last-minute bookings can also cost significantly more.

The watchdog’s findings raise a straightforward question.

If the authority didn’t document why the travel was necessary or approve it in advance, how could it ensure taxpayers weren’t paying more than they needed to?

Other emails show how quickly some executive-related requests were approved.

In one exchange, Prate told the authority that Choudri had requested that he accompany him on a trip beginning the following day.

The request went to High-Speed Rail’s chief financial officer.

Approval came five minutes later.

That doesn’t establish that the travel was unnecessary.

But it shows how directly a request invoking the CEO could influence the approval process.

A quarter of a billion dollars in consultant payments. Who’s watching?

The High-Speed Rail Authority prepared a presentation to respond to the Inspector General’s investigation at Friday’s board meeting. 

The original version, uploaded early in the week, emphasized how little it spent on travel compared with its total consultant payments. The pie chart further highlights the scale of consultant spending.

Over just two fiscal years, the Authority paid four consulting contractors more than a quarter of a billion dollars. Only about $2 million was for travel.

The inspector general reviewed roughly half of that and found more than half was unallowable under state rules or contract terms.

According to whistleblowers, this points to a much bigger concern:

If the authority couldn’t enforce basic travel-spending rules, who is overseeing the rest of the quarter-billion dollars?

But that slide was missing from the presentation the authority ultimately gave the board.

The revised version no longer discloses the total payments to those contractors.

In an email, a spokesperson said, “The information was streamlined to keep the focus clear for the Board and the public.

What are taxpayers getting for the money?

Since Ian Choudri became CEO in 2024, California’s high-speed rail project has fallen further behind, even as the authority pays four major consulting contractors more than a quarter of a billion dollars over two fiscal years.

And that money isn’t for laying track.

These are consultants. They’re paid to provide legal advice, financial guidance, program management and engineering design. Their work helps shape the decisions about what gets built, how it gets built and what taxpayers will pay.

California created its High-Speed Rail Authority 30 years ago, in 1996. Nearly two decades have passed since voters approved billions in funding for a bullet train connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Yet the state still hasn’t laid a mile of high-speed rail track.

Meanwhile, a CBS California investigation found the High-Speed Rail Authority, under Choudri, repeatedly missed its own deadlines to purchase trains. Federal officials cited those failures when they withdrew $4 billion in funding.

As of October, no high-speed rail track had been laid, and the project’s independent inspector general warns California could run out of money as soon as December 2027 unless it secures additional financing.

The authority says it is revising designs and changing the project’s scope to reduce costs. The inspector general said much of the projected cost reduction reflected plans to build less, like reducing the plans from two tracks to one. 

But in a separate review of the authority’s 2026 business plan, the inspector general found that the project’s schedule slipped nine months in less than a year.

Whistleblowers inside the authority question whether the promised savings account for the costs of further delays and additional consultant work.

That brings us back to the late-night rides from the CEO’s home.

The receipts don’t show who was present or what decisions, if any, were made or what discussions were had at the residence and nearby restaurants. 

But whistleblowers warn of increasingly costly delays while California pays consultants a quarter of a billion dollars to help shape decisions, sometimes leading to more delays. They believe taxpayers deserve answers.  

Who proposed the design changes? Who approved them? How much are consultants charging to revise the work? And do the projected savings outweigh the costs of delay?

The receipts reveal where the consultants went. The bigger question, say whistleblowers, is what taxpayers are getting in return.

To be continued… 

Why is California paying high-speed rail consultants to fly to Sacramento when they promised they would be based in Sacramento?

In part two of our series, The Receipts, CBS California Investigates the money behind a $131 million engineering contract.

The firm promised its key personnel would relocate to Sacramento. But newly obtained receipts reveal three of the six are traveling in from out of state on the taxpayers’ dime, while one senior consultant’s billing rate increased nearly 23%. 

The watchdog questioned more than $76,000 in travel expenses. Our investigation reveals the receipts.

[EDITORS NOTE: This story was updated to include new details following the High Speed Rail Board meeting on October 9, 2026.]