Due to the impending blizzard, officials have ordered all illegally parked cars to be towed and that the owners be fined.

A)all illegally parked cars to be towed and that owners be
B)that all illegally parked cars be towed and the owners
C)that all illegally parked cars should be towed, with the owners being
D)the towing of all illegally parked cars and the owners to be
E)all illegally parked cars towed, with their owners

I chose E but the correct answer is B.
Here's the explanation of the correct answer from Princeton Review:

The sentence mixes two constructions by using all... to be towed and be fined. Because the second half does not use the infinitive form to be fined, the sentence lacks parallelism. Eliminate choice A. Choice C contains a similar error, as it uses be towed, and being fined. Choice D is equally lacking in the parallelism, as it contains towing and to be fined. Choice E similarly also lacks parallelism, and the use of with in this case is idiomatically incorrect.

My question:
What's wrong with using "with" in Choice E? What's the correct use of "with"?
I don't think B is the correct answer because I think it also lacks parallelism because Choice B has "cars be towed and the owners fined". To make it correct, it should be "cars be towed and the owners be fined"
What is the difference between "be" and "to be"?

Appreciate your help.