We have different understandings of fees for public services.
With sufficient public demand and democracy, all public services could be provided with no fees and funded entirely by taxes. As Garrit Hardin points out in "Filters Against Folly" (suggested to me by Gene Miya, btw), fees are driven by public policy, not costs. Hardin's example was parking meters. A town might offer free parking to help local businesses, or raise parking meter fees to drive faster turn over (again to help businesses). Fees for mass transit are another example.
IMO, the central question (for NH voters) relative to FSP is what do they want from that public resource? The core tension would seem to me to be how many slots do they want to protect for NH residents vs how many slots do they want to reserve for out of state visitors (who may or may not feed the local tourism industry. Fees are one way to shape usage. It's a terribly regressive approach though and fees generally always favor the rich.
IMO, budgeting for shuttle buses, parking spaces, public transportation, turnpikes, secondary schools, colleges, and health care are all about taxation and public budgets.
The non-sense about fee for use is just the marketing spin they put on it to sell austerity measures to a public that largely accepts a radical capitalist mindset that reduces all things - and in particular, state services - to a market commodity.
The issue at FSP is over usage. Not budget. That's a fictional problem created by a fee for service framing. "Control the frame, control the outcome." -Shegloff.