Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1381 (R.I.1994). It is well settled that a plaintiff aggrieved by a state agency’s action first must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a claim in court. Burns v. Sundlun, 617 A.2d 114, 116 (R.I.1992). The exhaustion of remedies requirement serves two purposes: “(1) it aids judicial review by allowing the parties and the agency to develop the facts of the case, and (2) ‘it promotes judicial economy by avoiding needless repetition of administrative and judicial factfinding, perhaps avoiding the necessity of any judicial involvement.’ ” Id. at 117 (quoting Schwartz, Administrative Law § 8.33 at 542 (1991)). This Court has made exceptions when the exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile. See M.B.T. Construction Corp. v. Edwards, 528 A.2d 336, 338 (R.I.1987) . In this case, plaintiffs contended that they,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings
B. holding that an appeal to an agency review board would be futile because the board lacked authority to invalidate ordinance as requested
C. holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause
D. holding that where approval of the board of directors was not formally requested a demand would have been futile for it could hardly be expected that if approval of the board of directors were sought defendant who controlled 50 of the board would have authorized the action against himself
E. holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.