EX-23

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and
Board of Trustees of Dreyfus Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of
Dreyfus Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2005, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), we considered
its internal control over financial reporting, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, as a basis for designing our
auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR,
but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness
of Dreyfus Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund's internal control
over financial reporting.  Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

The management of Dreyfus Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective
internal control over financial reporting. In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management
are required to assess the expected benefits and related
costs of controls. A company's internal control over financial reporting
is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. Such internal control includes
policies and procedures that provide reasonable assurance regarding
prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition,
use or disposition of a company's assets that could have
a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial
reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections
of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to
the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

A control  deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does
not allow  management  or employees,  in the normal  course of performing  their
assigned  functions,  to prevent or detect  misstatements  on a timely basis.  A
significant  deficiency  is a control  deficiency,  or  combination  of  control
deficiencies,   that  adversely  affects  the  company's  ability  to  initiate,
authorize,  record,  process  or report  external  financial  data  reliably  in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more
than a remote  likelihood that a misstatement of the company's annual or interim
financial  statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or
detected.  A material  weakness s a significant  deficiency,  or  combination of
significant  deficiencies,  that results in more than a remote likelihood that a
material  misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be
prevented or detected.

Our  consideration  of Dreyfus Florida  Intermediate  Municipal Bond Fund's
internal control over financial  reporting was for the limited purpose described
in the first  paragraph and would not necessarily  disclose all  deficiencies in
internal control that might be significant  deficiencies or material  weaknesses
under  standards  established by the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board
(United  States).   However,   we  noted  no  deficiencies  in  Dreyfus  Florida
Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund's internal control over financial reporting and
its operation,  including controls for safeguarding securities, that we consider
to be a material weakness as defined above as of December 31, 2005.

This report is intended  solely for the  information  and use of management
and the Board of Trustees of Dreyfus  Florida  Intermediate  Municipal Bond Fund
and the Securities and Exchange  Commission and is not intended to be and should
not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
February 7, 2006

EX-99.77E LEGAL

                        SUB-ITEM 77E - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In early 2004, a purported  shareholder  in the Dreyfus  Disciplined  Stock
Fund and a  purported  shareholder  in the Dreyfus S&P 500 Stock Index Fund each
filed similar class action  lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania  against Mellon Financial  Corporation,  Mellon
Bank, N.A. (the "Mellon  Defendants"),  The Dreyfus Corporation,  Founders Asset
Management  LLC,  and certain  directors  of Dreyfus  Funds  (together  with the
Dreyfus Founders Funds, the "Funds") and certain John Doe defendants  identified
as directors of other Dreyfus Funds.  (Hays v. Mellon  Financial  Corp., et. al.
and Wortman v. Mellon Financial Corp., et. al.)

In September 2004, plaintiffs served a Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") on behalf of a purported class of all persons who acquired
interests in the Funds between January 30, 1999 and November 17, 2003, and
derivatively on behalf of the Funds. In addition to the defendants mentioned
above, Plaintiffs also named Dreyfus Service Corporation and Premier Mutual Fund
Services, Inc. as defendants. The Amended Complaint in the newly styled In re
Dreyfus Mutual Funds Fee Litigation alleged violations of Sections 34(b), 36(a),
36(b), and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "ICA"), Section 215
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law and common-law claims. More specifically, plaintiffs
claimed, among other things, that 12b-1 fees and directed brokerage were
improperly used to pay brokers to recommend the Funds over other funds, and that
such payments were not disclosed to investors. In addition, plaintiffs asserted
that economies of scale and soft-dollar benefits were not passed on to the Funds
and that 12b-1 fees were improperly charged to certain of the Funds that were
closed to new investors. Plaintiffs sought to recover allegedly improper and
excessive Rule 12b-1 and advisory fees allegedly charged to the Funds for
marketing and distribution services. The Amended Complaint sought compensatory
and punitive damages, rescission of the advisory contracts, and an accounting
and restitution of any unlawful fees, as well as an award of attorneys fees and
litigation expenses.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in whole or
substantial part on November 12, 2004. In a Memorandum Opinion dated September
28, 2005, the Court dismissed all of the claims except for a claim against
Dreyfus under Section 36(b) of the ICA which alleged that Dreyfus had breached a
duty to the Dreyfus funds by charging advisory fees that were excessive, and a
claim under section 48(a) of the ICA against the Mellon Defendants claiming that
they were "controlling persons" responsible for that violation.

Dreyfus and the Mellon Defendants answered the Amended Complaint, denying its
material allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. Dreyfus and the
Mellon Defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings on the remaining
claims on the grounds that, pursuant to the ICA, they should have been brought
derivatively but were improperly brought as class claims. That motion is
pending.