delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant-Appellant, the City of East St. Louis (the City), appeals from a final order and judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County which denied the City’s motion to quash a garnishment summons. The City raises one issue on this appeal, that is whether its Ordinance No. 80-10043, which prohibits nonwage garnishment of City funds on deposit at institutions within the City, is valid. The City urges resolution of this issue in its favor on the ground that, as a home rule unit, the City is entitled to prohibit the garnishment of City funds located within the City because that is a subject pertaining to the City’s government and affairs under article VII, section (6) of the Illinois constitution. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, §(6).) Appellee, Arthur McLorn, raises two arguments to rebut the City’s contention. First, McLorn asserts that the ordinance in question is an invalid legislation of sovereign immunity. Second, McLorn contends that *150the ordinance is an improper exercise of powers not accorded home rule units by the constitution. We affirm.
In 1979 a final order of the Industrial Commission awarded Arthur McLorn a workers’ compensation award of $11,012.80 against the City. The City failed to pay the amount of the award, and on August 24, 1979, McLorn filed an application with the circuit court of St. Clair County for entry of judgment on the award. On September 20, 1980, judgment was entered. On May 22,1980, the City adopted the following ordinance:
“HOME RULE ORDINANCE TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO THE PROPERTY AND ASSETS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY JUDGMENT CREDI_TORS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS_
WHEREAS, the City of East St. Louis is a ‘Home Rule Municipality’ under the provisions of Article VII, Section 6 — a, etc., of the Illinois State Constitution and was adopted in 1970; and
WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of Illinois has not enacted any statutes dealing with or granting sovereign immunity as to supplementary proceedings relating to local units of government, including municipalities, school districts, park districts, etc., as was reserved to said legislature in Article XIII, Section 4 of the Illinois State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, it would be within the purview of the City of East St. Louis to enact legislation dealing with the issue of immunity of local governmental units and school districts from supplementary proceedings initiated by judgment creditors and their successors as such proceedings would occur and/or effect [sic] such local governmental units and school districts situated within the geographical boundaries and municipal corporate limits of the City of East St. Louis; and
WHEREAS, it would be in the best interest of the City and its citizens and the local governmental units, including school districts, park districts, sewer districts and health districts, to be granted immunity by such actions of judgment creditors as it relates to the property of such entities situated within the geographical boundaries of the City of East St. Louis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE ALDERMANIC COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, as follows:
I. All property or assets of local governmental units, including municipalities, school districts, park districts and sewer districts, shall be immune and shall not be subject to garnishment actions by judgment creditors where said property or asset is held or dis-*151posited [sic] with any third party, or situated within the geographical boundaries and city limits of the City of East St. Louis.
II. Any institution, firm, trust, person or corporate entity situated within the city limits of the City of East St. Louis, upon which a judgment creditor issues a garnishee summons on any property or any local governmental unit, shall be empowered to affirmatively plead the immunity granted in the preceding paragraph 1.
III. Any local governmental unit, upon whose property has been subject to a garnishee summons with any third party institution referred to in Sections 1 and/or 2 of this Ordinance, shall have the right to intercede as a party of interest to any such garnishment proceedings and to affirmatively plead the immunity granted in Section 1 of this Ordinance.
IV. Garnishment process, as defined and intended within the provisions of this Ordinance, shall not include wage deduction summons upon local governmental units situated within the geographical limits of the City of East St. Louis.”
The City is a home rule unit. On May 27,1980, McLorn filed an affidavit for garnishment (nonwage) based on his belief that the First Illinois Bank, East StLouis (the Bank), had City funds in its possession. The City was granted leave to intervene and filed a motion to quash the garnishment summons on the ground that “a certain Ordinance #80-10043, ** * * grant[s] imnuity [sic] to the property and assets of the City from all actions or proceedings instituted by judgment creditors including the act of non-wage garnishment.” On September 18, 1980, the circuit court denied the motion to quash and the City filed a motion asking the court to reconsider this decision. This motion was denied on November 3, 1980. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of McLorn and against the City and the Bank and also ordered the Bank to pay any City funds held by the Bank to McLorn pursuant to the garnishment. This last order was stayed pending appeal. The City then appealed to this court.
The City initially contends that the ordinance in question does not conflict with article XIII of the Illinois Constitution. Article XIII, section 4 provides that “Except as the General Assembly may provide by law, sovereign immunity in this State is abolished.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, §4.) The City contends that the words “General Assembly” should be construed to “include other legislative bodies to whom the General Assembly and the constitution have granted concurrent legislative power.” We cannot agree. The constitution does not say “Except as the General Assembly and other legislative bodies may provide * * (Emphasis added.) Hence, we read “General Assembly” to mean General Assembly. The supreme court implied some support for this reading when it said that “the principle of sovereign immunity, whether it stems from prior
*152constitutional provisions or from principles of common law (see Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 (1959), 18 Ill. 2d 11), does not exist under the 1970 Constitution except as the General Assembly provides by law. See S.H.A. Ill. Const., art. XIII, sec. 4, Constitutional Commentary, at 292 (1971).” (Emphasis added.) (Henderson v. Foster (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 343, 349, 319 N.E.2d 789.) We conclude that only the General Assembly may establish sovereign immunity. The question before us now becomes whether the ordinance confers sovereign immunity on the City. The City appears to claim that the ordinance does not grant sovereign immunity to the City, but rather is solely a procedural matter, because it restricts only the manner in which a judgment against the City may be collected. This argument focuses on only one aspect of the ordinance. Formerly, the standard used to determine whether a municipal corporation was immune focused on whether public funds would be diverted to pay damage claims. “ ‘The reason, as often expressed, is one of public policy, to protect public funds and public property.’ ” (Emphasis deleted.) (Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consolidated School District No. 201 (1952), 348 Ill. App. 567, 572, 109 N.E.2d 636.) That is, if the effect of an ordinance is to protect municipal funds from the reach of creditors, then the ordinance provides sovereign immunity for the city so ordaining. The current validity of this effects test is supported by a 1979 supreme court case involving the sovereign immunity of the State of Illinois. A suit is against the State if “the State will be directly and adversely affected by the judgment or decree * * (Hudgens v. Dean (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 353, 357, 388 N.E.2d 1242.) The court concluded that the suit in question was barred by sovereign immunity because it would require “the spending of state funds * * (Hudgens v. Dean (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 353, 357; see also Land v. Dollar (1947), 330 U.S. 731, 738, 91 L. Ed. 1209, 67 S. Ct. 1009.) Looking to the effect of the instant ordinance, which is the exclusion of City funds from the reach of creditors, we conclude that the ordinance does ordain sovereign immunity. This conclusion is supported by the City’s motion to quash, filed in the trial court, which asserted that the ordinance granted “immunity” to the City’s property and assets. Even more telling on this point is the preamble to the ordinance itself, which provides in part, “whereas the legislature of the State of Illinois has not enacted any statutes dealing with or granting sovereign immunity as to supplementary proceedings relating to local units of government * 0 We conclude that the ordinance is an exercise in sovereign immunity. Having already determined that only the General Assembly may enact legislation concerning sovereign immunity, we further conclude that the City’s ordinance No. 80-10043 is invalid.
An alternative basis for this conclusion is that the ordinance does not relate to the City’s “government and affairs,” within the meaning of article *153VII, section 6 of the Illinois Constitution. Article VII, section 6(a) provides in pertinent part that:
“A County which has a chief executive officer elected by the electors of the county and any municipality which has a population of more than 25,000 are home rule units. * * * Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of public health, safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, §6(a).)
Where powers or functions of a home rule unit are concerned, the scope of authority granted to home rule units under section 6(a) is generally coextensive with that of the sovereign, except where such powers are limited expressly by the General Assembly. (City of Urbana v. Houser (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 268, 273, 367 N.E.2d 692.) In addition, the constitution mandates that “Powers and functions of home rule units are to be construed liberally.” (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, §6(m).) The parties to the instant case have cited a number of law review articles bearing on the resolution of this issue. While these have provided helpful background information, our determination of this case depends ultimately on our supreme court’s analysis of the scope of home rule power granted by section 6(a). (Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 537, 540, 338 N.E.2d 15.) A line of cases decided by our supreme court has indicated that certain functions do not pertain to a home rule unit’s government and affairs and hence are not appropriate subjects for municipal legislation. (See, e.g., County of Cook v. John Sexton Contractors Co. (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 494, 389 N.E.2d 553; People ex rel. Lignoul v. City of Chicago (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 480, 368 N.E.2d 100; Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 537, and City of Chicago v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 484, 322 N.E.2d 11.) These cases have invalidated ordinances on the basis of a statewide, rather than local, interest in the subject matter of the ordinance. As stated in Ampersand, “ ‘the powers of home rule units relate to then-own problems, not to those of the state or the nation.’ * * * Although mindful of the liberal construction mandate, we have struck down home rule ordinances where they did not pertain to the government or affairs of the local unit.” (Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 537, 542.) The supreme court has found the presence of a statewide interest to be indicated by constitutional provisions committing the area in question to a specific branch of government. In John Sexton Contractors Co. and Pollution Control Board, zoning restrictions dealing respectively with landfills and a city’s power to regulate garbage collection and disposal, were held to be limited by article XI of the Constitution, which mandates *154the legislature to set standards for environmental control. In Ampersand, a home rule unit’s power was held not to extend to the collection of a library fee with the filing of civil pleadings because that tax constituted a “condition to the right to litigate in the courts” which could only be imposed by the State, not by a home rule unit. (Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 537, 542.) The court’s analysis relied heavily on the single unified court system, which was committed to the State by article VI. (Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 537, 542.) In Lignoul the court found statewide concern for the regulation of the banking industry in article XIII, section 8 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. (People ex rel. Lignoul v. City of Chicago (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 480, 487.) In the instant case McLorn argues that section 4 of article XIII of the 1970 Illinois Constitution similarly provides a constitutional indication that the ordinance in question is an exercise of power properly belonging to the State alone. Because we have already determined that only the General Assembly may re-establish sovereign immunity, we agree with this contention. The City argues that it is vitally interested in preventing the disruption of funds needed to continue basic city services. This argument pertains to the desirability of sovereign immunity for municipal corporations rather than to what the constitution actually provides. As such, the argument is better addressed to the General Assembly than to this court. We note, parenthetically, that the General Assembly has not immunized home rule units from either the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.; see the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 85, par. 2 — 101(c)), or an “Act in regard to Garnishment” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 62, pars. 33-52). Merely because the General Assembly has refrained from accomplishing that which the City deems desirable is not reason enough to justify the ordinance in question. Because power over sovereign immunity is vested solely in the General Assembly, sovereign immunity does not pertain to a home rule unit’s government and affairs. We conclude that the City’s ordinance is therefore invalid. Because the ordinance is invalid, the trial court correctly refused to quash the garnishment summons and should therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.
KASSERMAN, J., concurs.