Not long after passing an ordinance, Howell Township confronted a situation that the ordinance would govern. However, that measure, while published, had not yet been recorded in the township’s book of ordinances. In an ensuing lawsuit, the *348circuit court granted summary disposition to Rooto Corporation, against whom the ordinance was invoked, holding that it was not enforceable because it was unrecorded. The Court of Appeals reversed. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the ordinance is enforceable, and accordingly affirm.
i
In September 1995, Howell Township adopted an ordinance that allowed it to recover the cost of responding to certain incidents involving hazardous materials.1 This measure, labeled Ordinance 53, provided that it would take effect thirty days after publication in the Livingston County Press.
The effective date of an ordinance is governed by MCL 41.184; MSA 5.45(4). In that statutory section, the Legislature requires that an ordinance be published in a local newspaper,2 and establishes an effective date that runs from the local publication:
*349Except as provided in [MCL 46.22; MSA 5.46(22)][3] and [MCL 125.281; MSA 5.2963(11)],[4] a township ordinance shall take effect as follows:
(a) If an ordinance imposes a sanction for the violation of the ordinance, the ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the first publication of the ordinance.
(b) If an ordinance does not impose a sanction for the violation of the ordinance, the ordinance shall take effect the day following the date of the publication of the ordinance or any date following publication specified in the ordinance.[5] [MCL 41.184(2); MSA 5.45(4)(2).][6]
The Howell Township ordinance was published in early October 1995, and took effect thirty days later.7 Thus, it was in effect on Thanksgiving Day 1995 when an arson fire occurred in the township at the Rooto Corporation plant.
Rooto makes drain cleaner and related products, and maintains supplies of several chemical substances. The city of Howell Fire Department serves the township by contract, and was the primary responding agency. Emergency personnel also came from other nearby communities. We are told that the fire took many hours to suppress. Among the consequences of the fire was the evacuation of a nursing home toward which the smoke was moving.
*350In the aftermath of these events, the Howell Fire Department presented Howell Township with a bill in the amount of $76,750.27. The township sought reimbursement from Rooto under Ordinance 53. Rooto declined to pay. This suit followed.
On cross-motions for summary disposition, the circuit court ruled in favor of Rooto and against the township. The basis of the ruling was a statutory provision that requires a township clerk to record each ordinance in a “book of ordinances.”8
On the day of the fire, Ordinance 53 had not yet been recorded in the book of ordinances. Nor had it been recorded when, after receiving a payment invoice from the township, a representative of Rooto went to the township clerk to obtain a copy of the ordinance. He was able to obtain a copy because he knew of the ordinance and could ask specifically for it by number.9
*351The circuit court accepted Rooto’s argument that the unrecorded ordinance was unenforceable, and granted summary disposition in its favor. However, the Court of Appeals reversed. 236 Mich App 438; 600 NW2d 412 (1999).
Rooto now applies to this Court for leave to appeal.
n
Reversing the judgment of the circuit court, the Court of Appeals explained that the obligation of the township clerk to maintain the book of ordinances was unrelated to the question whether a particular ordinance is in effect:
The Michigan Legislature has provided clear direction regarding the issue presented in this case. The effective date of a newly adopted township ordinance depends on the date of publication. See MCL 41.184; MSA 5.45(4). Township ordinances that impose sanctions “take effect” thirty days after the date of publication. MCL 41.184(2)(a); MSA 5.45(4)(2)(a). Township ordinances that do not impose sanctions “take effect” the day following publication, unless otherwise provided in the ordinance. MCL 41.184(2)(b); MSA 5.45(4)(2)(b). Here, Ordinance 53 provided that it was to become effective thirty days after publication. Accordingly, whether it can be said to impose a “sanction” or not, Ordinance 53 took effect on November 3, 1995, thirty days after its publication on October 4, 1995.
In its brief on appeal, defendant contends that the issue is not when Ordinance 53 “took effect,” but rather whether the ordinance was “valid” given the township clerk’s admitted failure to meet the recording requirements of MCL 41.185(1); MSA 5.45(5)(1). This argument presents what is, essentially, a distinction without a difference. Nothing in MCL 41.185; MSA 5.45(5) addresses the enforceability or validity of township ordinances. That section merely imposes a bookkeeping duty on township clerks. The proce*352dural requirements necessary for a newly adopted township ordinance to “take effect” are addressed in MCL 41.184; MSA 5.45(4), and there is no dispute that these requirements were met by the township. Therefore we hold that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition. [236 Mich App 440-442.]
We agree,10 and wish to emphasize that the Court of Appeals characterization of the ordinance-book requirement as a “bookkeeping duty” is no mere figure of speech. The Legislature has placed on township clerks a literal duty to keep a book, and has emphasized with the mandatory “shall” the importance of properly maintaining it. However, that obligation is unrelated to the effectiveness of the township’s ordinances. There is no reason that an ordinance should be invalidated by the township clerk’s failure to record it in the book of ordinances.*11 Effectiveness is, as the Court of Appeals explained, governed by MCL 41.184; MSA 5.45(4).
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MCR 7.302(F)(1).
Weaver, C.J., and Cavanagh, Kelly, Taylor, Corrigan, Young, and Markman, JJ., concurred.