Further proof that the state is aware of this case and that they refuse to recognize the right to bear arms:
The law establishing the fee for the eligibility certificate requires that all funds for an eligibility certificate be placed into a non-lapsing account specifically for the cost of issuing eligibility certificates. During the latest budget they did not increase the fees for an EC.Sec. 29-36h. Fee for eligibility certificate. Expiration and renewal of eligibility certificate. (a) The fee for each eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver originally issued under the provisions of section 29-36f shall be thirty-five dollars and for each renewal thereof thirty-five dollars, which fees shall be paid to the Commissioner of Public Safety. Upon deposit of such fees in the General Fund, the fees shall be credited to the appropriation to the Department of Public Safety to a separate nonlapsing account for the purposes of the issuance of eligibility certificates under said section.
The reason is likely because in the special session during which the budget was proposed and passed could no legislation could be brought up that didn't have a significant impact on the State's finances. Since no money is going towards the general fund from EC's, raising the fee wouldn't impact the State's finances.
However, I believe at some point the legislature was made aware that they could not pass a law unconstitutionally burdening the exercise of a recognized right. Since the State recognizes only the right to keep arms and not the right to bear arms, they felt they were within their constitutional powers to attach an excessive fee on the right to bear arms. This excessive fee would be any money exacted from applicants for permits to carry that is deposited into the general fund and not apportioned to DPS for the purposes of administering the issuance of permits.
The cost of administering the issuance of permits is statutorily defined as $10. The state legislature did not raise this amount (because they likely couldn't during a special session) with the passage of the budget. DPS has also drafted proposed legislation hiking the fees on permits (see link below). Their proposed take of the permit fees is $30, with an additional $70 being deposited into the general fund.
I believe if this issue were brought before a court, the DPS proposed legislation and the statute defining fees for ECs would be used to determine that a fee of more than $30-$35 at the state level for a Permit to Carry is unconstitutional. As to how much we have to pay to the towns for administration of the issuance of temporary permits to carry is a whole other issue.