EX-99

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 for the year ended December 31, 2004, we considered
its internal control, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of Dreyfus Florida Intermediate Municipal
Bond Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates
 and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls. Generally,
 controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entitys objective of preparing financial statements for
external purposes that are fairly presented in conformity
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error
or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projection of
 any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the
 design and operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States).  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud
in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
 statements being audited may occur and not be detected within
 a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
 their assigned functions. However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2004.

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 4, 2005

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 Dreyfus  Corporation,  Founders Asset  Management  LLC, and the
directors  of all or  substantially  all of the  Dreyfus  Funds and the  Dreyfus
Founders Funds (together, the "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 any of 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 alleges violations of Sections 34(b), 36(a),
36(b), and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Section 215 of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law and common-law claims. Plaintiffs seek to recover
allegedly improper and excessive Rule 12b-1 and advisory fees allegedly charged
to the Funds for marketing and distribution services. More specifically,
plaintiffs claim, 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
assert that economies of scale and soft-dollar benefits were not passed on to
the Funds. Plaintiffs further allege that 12b-1 fees were improperly charged to
certain of the Funds that were closed to new investors. The Amended Complaint
seeks 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.

As noted, some of the claims in this litigation are asserted derivatively on
behalf of the Funds that have been named as nominal defendants. With respect to
such derivative claims, no relief is sought against the Funds.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 12, 2004,
and those motions are pending. No discovery has been conducted.