Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Whitestown Court held that the trial court erred by finding that Whitestown had failed to carry its burden of proof. The Court also sought to “remind trial courts of ... the deferential standard accorded to annexing municipalities[.]” Id. at 927, 2015 WL 4557062 at *10. In the end, the Whitestown Court reversed the trial court and instructed that judgment be entered in favor of Whitestown on the remonstrators’ petition. 2. Boonville Annexation [28] As for the case before us, we agree with Boonville that what a municipality needs and can use “is first and foremost a legislative determination.” Ap-pellees’ Br. p. 33. A court, should not substitute its judgment for-what a municipality determines is needed to accomplish its purposes. State v. Collom, 720 N,E.2d 737, 741 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) . Additionally, we observe that necessity “is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that questions of government necessity and expediency are understood to be exclusively for the legislature
B. holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction
C. holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts
D. holding that in general an agencys conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard but questions concerning whether an agency has followed proper procedures or considered the appropriate factors in making its determination are questions of law which are reviewed de novo
E. holding that matters of statutory construction are questions of law for the court to decide rather than issues of fact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.